Used to Defeat in Court, MIVILUDES Suffers Two Losses in One Day

The French governmental anti-cult mission was sentenced for its lack of transparency and refusal to disclose documents about its funding of private anti-cult associations.

By Massimo Introvigne

May 19, 2025

The Administrative Court of Paris. Credits.

The controversial French anti-cult governmental agency MIVILUDES, the Mission for Monitoring and Combating Cultic Deviances (“dérives sectaires”: note that the French “secte” and its derivative words should be translated into English as “cult” and not as “sect”), is accustomed to losing court cases. If it has to pay damages, the money comes from the French taxpayers. 

On June 14, 2024, the MIVILUDES was found guilty of defamation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. On February 21, 2025, it was sentenced for having found non-existent “cultic deviances” in the Community of Malrevers, which traces its origins to the French movement La Famille, even if it is now closer to Judaism and, if anything, highly critical of La Famille’s theology and lifestyle.

On May 16, the MIVILUDES lost not one but two cases at the Administrative Court of Paris in one day, where it crossed swords with an NGO with consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) called Coordination des associations et des particuliers pour la liberté de conscience (CAP-LC, Coordination of Associations and Individuals for Freedom of Conscience).

In the first case, the Court ordered the MIVILUDES to delete three parts of its yearly report for 2021. The judges noted that they supplied false information about the right of individuals and groups to obtain documents from MIVILUDES.

The first case is the most embarrassing for the MIVILUDES, as it is connected with frequent accusations in the French media that it lacks transparency in managing its funds and distributing them to private anti-cult associations. As the court summarized, the MIVILUDES boldly stated in its report that “it will reject any request for disclosure of documents it holds relating to the financing of associations, in particular in the context of a call for projects launched on May 20, 2021, because ‘information concerning this call for projects will be available in the annexes to the draft finance bill for 2022, which will set out the allocation of appropriations. These annexes will be published and available to all online.’” 

However, the Court noted that French law “establishes a right to communication of administrative documents that is not to be confused with a right of access to the information contained in those documents… It is only in cases where the documents are subject to public disclosure that the right to communication no longer applies, and not when all or part of the information contained in these documents has been publicly disseminated. Consequently, the applicant association [CAP-LC] is justified in arguing that an error of law vitiates this statement in the report.”

This is connected to the second case, the MIVILUDES lost against CAP-LC on May 16. CAP-LC had asked the MIVILUDES to supply copies of all documents about how the subsidies the Mission gave in 2021 to the most significant French anti-cult association, UNADFI (Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l’individu, National Union of Associations for the Defense of Families and Individuals), were spent, including supporting documents, internal exchanges, and project reports. The MIVILUDES did not answer CAP-LC’s request for these documents. On June 1, 2023, CAP-LC referred the matter to the Commission for Access to Administrative Documents (CADA), which issued a favorable opinion on July 6, 2023, recommending that the requested documents be disclosed. Still, the MIVILUDES did not comply, which resulted in the (second) lawsuit. 

The Court decided that CAP-LC’s request was not “abusive,” and dismissed the MIVILUDES’ argument that all the documents requested were confidential. The judges accepted the confidentiality argument only for one item in the long list of documents requested by CAP-LC, the “contradictory assessments of the conditions under which the subsidized actions were carried out.” The Court said that all the other records are not confidential, and the MIVILUDES should give copies to CAP-LC.

The entrance to the Administrative Court of Paris. Credits.

Coming back to the first judgment, the Administrative Court of Paris found that two other passages in the MIVILUDES’ 2021 report might mislead the public about French law and should be suppressed. In the first, the MIVILUDES warned that it would reject requests for copies of a significant number of records, since “the large volume of documents in these requests suggests an intention to hinder the functioning of the Interministerial Mission.” The judges countered, “The applicant association [CAP-LC] is justified in arguing that an error of law vitiates this statement in the report.” The number of documents requested does not prove that a request is abusive.

In the second misleading passage, the MIVILUDES claimed that releasing copies of its internal documents would in all cases “undermine state security, public safety, and the personal safety of individuals,” thus justifying the Mission’s refusal to release them following freedom of information requests. However, the Court said, “there is no text or principle that the consultation or disclosure of all documents held by the MIVILUDES, which must be examined on a case-by-case basis, would systematically undermine state security, public safety, the safety of individuals, or the security of government information systems, or that it is not possible to conceal or separate information whose disclosure would undermine these requirements… Consequently, the applicant association [CAP-LC] is justified in arguing that an error of law vitiates this statement in the report.” The judges admitted that some documents, or parts of them, may be confidential, including the names of those who report abuses and elements that would lead to identifying them. However, it rejected the argument that all or most MIVILUDES documents are confidential and cannot be disclosed.

The MIVILUDES was sentenced to contribute to CAP-LC’s expenses in both cases. It is highly significant that the Mission vigorously defended these cases and refused to release documents, particularly on the money it gave UNADFI and how it was spent. The MIVILUDES indicated it does not accept operating under the principles of transparency that should be normal in a democratic society. 

Source: bitterwinter.org