The Council of State cancels the dissolution of the Uprisings of the Earth, a controversial environmentalist collective
The Council of State rendered its decision last Thursday, canceling the decree dissolving the environmentalist collective Earth Uprisings. This decision follows legal action taken by the collective after its dissolution in June by the Ministry of the Interior.
According to the Council of State, the dissolution of the collective infringes on freedom of association which is a fundamental principle recognized by the laws of the Republic. The court also considers that no provocation of violence against people can be attributed to the Earth Uprisings. Although the collective relayed images of clashes between demonstrators and the police, this does not constitute justification for its dissolution, according to the Council of State.
However, the Council of State recognizes that the Earth Uprisings demonstrated provocations and violent acts against property. However, he considers that their dissolution is not a measure adapted and proportionate to the seriousness of the potential disturbances to public order.
This decision by the Council of State comes as a surprise since the public rapporteur had spoken in favor of the dissolution of the collective during the examination of the case in October.
At the same time as this decision, the Council of State confirmed the dissolution of three other associations: the Coordination against Racism and Islamophobia (CRI), the Alvarium, a small ultra-right group, and the GALE (Antifascist Group Lyon and surroundings). According to the Council of State, these dissolutions are justified because of the violent acts and speeches made by these associations.
The decision of the Council of State provokes mixed reactions. While the members of the Earth Uprisings welcome this cancellation and see it as a victory for freedom of expression and environmental mobilization, certain political actors criticize this decision by highlighting the violent nature of the collective.
This decision once again reveals the complex debates around the balance between freedom of expression, freedom of association and the preservation of public order. It also underlines the need to find alternative solutions to regulate violent actions and speeches, while allowing the expression and mobilization of social actors committed to important causes such as environmental protection.