FRANCE: Anti-Cult association UNADFI loses again in court, ignoring the law
The Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence stated that its refusal to publish a right of reply from “Non à la Drogue, Oui à la Vie” was unlawful.
by Massimo Introvigne
Bitter Winter (13.03.2026) – On 12 March 2026, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence issued a significant ruling against France’s state-funded anti-cult establishment. This decision overturned a ruling from 2025 that had supported the anti-cult association UNADFI’s refusal to publish a legally required right of reply from the association “Non à la Drogue, Oui à la Vie.” The court’s terms were clear regarding the boundaries of anti-cult rhetoric when it conflicts with fundamental guarantees.
The case began in October 2024, when UNADFI published an article titled “Non à la drogue, oui à la vie : la scientologie ne peut se prévaloir d’avantages fiscaux.” This article included a letter from the Cercle laïque pour la prévention du sectarisme (CLPS), which urged the Ministry of the Budget to review the association’s eligibility for tax-deductible donations. The letter argued that the association openly referenced L. Ron Hubbard, claimed support from Scientologists worldwide, and therefore should not receive tax benefits intended for organizations recognized as serving the public interest. It also cited previous judicial outcomes involving Scientology and the closure of the Narconon center in Burgundy. The letter argued that, because of its perceived connection to Scientology, the association should not have the fiscal status it received.
In January 2025, the association used its statutory right of reply and submitted a text for immediate publication beneath the contested article. This reply defended the association’s mission in the public interest, its work in drug prevention education, its recognition by tax authorities, and its independence from the Church of Scientology. However, Catherine Katz, UNADFI’s director of publication, refused to publish it. She claimed it was misleading, promotional, and irrelevant to the original accusations. The Marseille court agreed with this reasoning in July 2025. It ruled that the reply constituted advertising and that some statements were allegedly false. As a result, the court ordered the association to pay costs and dismissed the request for publication.
Now, the Court of Appeal has fully reversed that decision. The court reaffirmed the legal framework: the right of reply, stated under the 1881 Press Law and the 2004 Law on digital communication, is “general and absolute.” The director of publication must insert the reply unless it is unlawful, abusive, or irrelevant. The court emphasized that denying the publication of a lawful reply is a “manifestly unlawful disturbance” that the référé judge must rectify. It noted that the right of reply aims to allow the targeted person to present their version of the facts, not to determine the objective truth. The judges clearly stated, “the right of reply is not a re-establishment of the truth but a tool allowing a person who has been called into question to give their version of the facts.”
The appellate court then looked closely at the content of both the original article and the proposed reply. It recognized that UNADFI’s publication questioned whether the association could be considered of public interest and thus eligible to issue tax-deductible receipts, given its ties to Scientology. The reply clarified the association’s activities, its recognition by tax authorities, its funding model, and its relationship with Scientology. The court deemed this entirely relevant, stating, “the text proposed by the association must therefore be understood as a response to its being called into question as an association of public interest in light of its links with the Church of Scientology, and not as a misuse of its right of reply for the purpose of promoting itself and/or Scientology. The reply is therefore in correlation with the article in that it does not stray into irrelevant subjects.”
Some additional info of Human Rights Without Without Frontiers (HRWF)
Other court decisions concerning UNADFI and the Church of Scientology
- On 20 November 2015, UNADFI lost a case against the Church of Scientology at the Cour d’appel de Paris (Ref. N° 14/09557) and had to pay 7000 EUR as financial compensation to the Church and to each of the two individual plaintifs
- On 12 January 2017, UNADFI lost a case in Cassation against the Church of Scientology (Pourvoi n° K-16 11.067)
UNADFI and their lawyer invited as “experts” of Scientology on French TV. Should they have?
Around mid-February, FRANCE TV broadcast a documentary followed by a debate about the Church of Scientology. The choice of an appropriate documentary and interlocutors with diverse viewpoints and expertise is essential for a fair discussion. That was not so in this case, as the documentary and those who were invited to comment on it after the screening were all oriented in the same direction: to criticize the Church of Scientology. Scholars in religious studies in France who had published peer-reviewed books on said movement in renowned academic publishing houses could have been invited but they were not.
Among the four panelists, two of them were presented as experts:
- Pascale DUVAL, UNADFI director and spokesperson l’UNADFI, who is more an anti-Scientology activist than an expert;
- Attorney Olivier MORICE, UNADFI attorney, defending said association in court lost a case in Cassation against the Church of Scientology in 2017 (See above).
It is their right to be opposed to this church but experts are expected to be balanced and factual. An attorney defending the Scientology could have been invited for the balance of the debate but none was.
As far as FRANCE TV is concerned, it is a legal and professional obligation as a media outlet to disseminate reliable information – which it usually does –, not militant programs – which it was in February. Indeed, most of their budget comes from public funding voted by the Parliament. About 86% of their resources come from public finances, i.e. the money of the French tax-payers.
HRWF (https://hrwf.eu) does not consider the merits of religions or beliefs, neither aligns itself with any specific religion, theology or non-religious worldview. HRWF does not defend any particular religion or belief system, but instead defends freedom of religion or belief for ALL as guaranteed by Article 18 of the UN Universal Declaration.
Photo: Volunteers of “Non à la Drogue, Oui à la Vie” distributing anti-drug brochures. Credits Bitter Winter
Further reading about FORB in France on HRWF website
