CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

MAGDALENA MATUSIAKǧFRĄCCZAK UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF “APOLOGY OF TERRORISM” AFTER ECTHR’S JUDGMENT IN Z. B. V. FRANCE – A COMMENTARY Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak Abstract: One of the elements of combatting terrorism is fighting against precursor crimes, including terrorist speech. Penalisation thereof is an obligation of the EU Member States both from the perspective of EU law and international law. This solution interferes severely in the freedom of expression. It can even lead to disproportionate results, as it happened in the ECtHR’s judgment in the case Z. B. v. France that will be commented in this article. Resumé: Jedním z prvků boje proti terorismu je potlačování trestných činů spočívajících v jeho podněcování a usnadňování, včetně teroristických projevů. Jejich postih je povinností členských států Evropské unie vyplývající z práva EU i mezinárodního práva. Zároveň před stavuje závažný zásah do práva na svobodu projevu. Může dokonce vést k nepřiměřeným výsledkům, jak tomu bylo v rozsudku ESLP ve věci Z. B. proti Francii , což bude komento váno v tomto článku. Keywords: terrorism, precursor crimes, terrorist speech, apology of terrorism, freedom of expression About the Author: Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak Ph.D. is an assistant professor at the Department of European Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz (Poland) and a visiting professor at the Chandigarh University (India). She is also an Adwokat (attorney). She holds a Master degree in International Economic Relations (at the Faculty of Economy and Sociology, University of Lodz, Poland), and a Master 1 in French law (at the University of Lodz, Poland and Université de Tours, France). Email: mfracczak@ wpia.uni.lodz.pl. 1. Introduction Member states of the European Union are obliged, both by international law and the EU law, to combat terrorist speech, understood as public provocation to commit terrorist offences (including also glorification/apology of terrorism), recruitment for terrorism, providing training for terrorism or constituting a threat to commit one of the terrorist offences. Such an obligation was imposed on states by the United Nations Security Council, 1 the Council of Europe, 2 and the European Union. 3 At the same time all these institutions urged states 1 UNSC, Resolution 1624 (2005) of 14 September 2005, Threats to international peace and security (Security Council Summit 2005), S/RES/1624 (2005). 2 Council of Europe, Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, Warsaw, 16 May 2005, CETS 196 – Article 5. 3 Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA (OJ L 88/6, 31.3.2017) as amended by the Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008 amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism, OJ L 330, p. 21, 9.12.2008 – Article 3(1)(j), Article 5, Article 6, and Article 7. Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 172, p. 79, 17.5.2021 – Article 2(7).

142