Seydi e altri. c. France, No. 35844/17, ECtHR (Fifth Section), 26 June 2025

Identity checks carried out by the French police and challenged as instances of racial profiling do not disclose a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 14, where the applicants had access to an effective judicial remedy.

Art. 8 ECHR

Art. 13 ECHR

Art. 14 ECHR

1. Identity checks conducted by national law enforcement authorities constitute an interference with the individual’s private sphere, protected under Article 8 of the ECHR, insofar as they affect personal identity and self-perception in the public space. It is not necessary for such checks to be followed by additional coercive measures: they may fall within the scope of application of the Convention where they attain a minimum level of severity. Accordingly, the discriminatory nature of the checks must be examined under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the ECHR.

2. Alleged ethnic profiling in the context of police identity checks places on the applicants the burden of establishing a prima facie case of differential treatment, which may consist in a set of serious, precise, and concordant circumstances. Once such prima facie evidence has been adduced, it is for the public authorities to demonstrate that the difference in treatment pursues objective and reasonable justification. Discrimination based on racial or ethnic grounds calls for particularly strict scrutiny, in light of the special protection to be afforded to pluralism and equality within a democratic order.

3. The absence in domestic law of a general obligation to ensure the traceability of identity checks may constitute a potential obstacle to judicial review; however, this circumstance does not in itself entail a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR where the legal system provides for an effective judicial remedy. The effectiveness of a remedy does not depend on a favourable outcome for the applicant, but rather on the concrete possibility of submitting one’s complaints to a competent judge who conducts a full, adequate, and reasoned examination. Once such procedure has been carried out, the mere dismissal of the claim does not, in itself, amount to a lack of effective protection.