European Court Finds France Carried Out Discriminatory Identity Check, But Misses Critical Opportunity to Address Systemic Racial Profiling

NEW YORK—The European Court of Human Rights today issued its decision in the case of Seydi and Others v. France, holding that the three identity checks carried out on one applicant—Mr. Karim Touil—over the course of 10 days, amounted to discrimination in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.  

This marks the first time the court has found France in breach of the convention in a case concerning racial profiling by the police. 

The case was brought by six French citizens of Black and North African descent who were stopped in public spaces under Article 78-2 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure—without any reasonable suspicion or explanation and without any record of the checks.  

The court ruled that in Mr. Touil’s case, the circumstances of the identity checks carried out on him, taken together with statistical data and official reports concerning the prevalence of discriminatory checks in France, were sufficient to create a presumption of discrimination. It found that the government had failed to provide any objective and reasonable justification for targeting Mr. Touil. 

“We welcome the court’s recognition that what happened to Karim Touil was ethnic profiling,” said James A. Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative. “This is a crucial step toward justice and accountability. At the same time, we regret that the court failed to seize the full opportunity to address the structural nature of discriminatory stop and search practices in France. By failing to do so, the ruling risks entrenching the practice of arbitrary stop and searches—common across much of Europe—which stigmatizes migrant and other visible minority communities, perpetuates stereotypes, and is an ineffective and counterproductive policing method.” 

All six applicants had argued that their stops violated Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition on discrimination), in conjunction with Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 2 of Protocol 4 (freedom of movement). They also argued that the excessively high burden on them to demonstrate the discriminatory nature of the checks, the lack of a record and the absence of any obligation on the police to provide them with the reasons for the check deprived them of an effective remedy in breach of Article 13. The court rejected these arguments in most of the cases, holding that the applicants had failed to provide sufficient evidence of differential treatment.

The court’s decision means that in the vast majority of cases, victims of discriminatory identity checks will find it impossible to prove their case. This contradicts a growing body of national and international evidence that France’s stop-and-search practices disproportionately target young men from visible minority backgrounds. A national survey published by the French Human Rights Defender’s Office found that men 18-25 years old perceived as Black or Arab are 20 times more likely to be checked than the rest of the population.  

Noting the significance of the decision in Mr. Touil's case, Slim Benachour, lawyer for the applicants, said: 

“The European Court of Human Rights’ condemnation of France for racial profiling is a major victory, first and foremost for those who are victims of this practice, but also for the rule of law, following on from the historic decisions of the Court of Cassation in 2016 and the recent recognition by the Council of State’s in 2023. This decision places France, but also other European countries and beyond, under an obligation to take measures to eliminate what the ECHR describes as a ‘particularly odious practice’.” 

The Open Society Justice Initiative, which represented the applicants in this case, alongside French lawyers Slim Benachour and Felix de Belloy, warns that the ruling could embolden police practices that have long drawn criticism from the UN, the Council of Europe, and national equality bodies. French authorities must urgently introduce reforms to ensure transparency and accountability in police stop practices.