FYI (with reference to #Durov case and beyond):
In France, the use and provision of #cryptographic tools and services are indeed subject to regulation. The relevant legal framework is primarily governed by the “Code de la défense” and the “Code monétaire et financier”.

Under French law, certain cryptographic tools are classified as "dual-use" items, meaning they have both civilian and military applications. This classification stems from historical concerns over national security and the use of strong encryption in military communications.
The importation, exportation, and provision of cryptographic services in France often require prior authorization from the French authorities. Specifically, the use of cryptography for securing communications and data may require either a declaration or an authorization depending on the strength and purpose of the encryption. This is governed by the “Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d'information” (ANSSI), the French National Cybersecurity Agency.

The use of cryptographic systems is regulated under the 1996 decree (modified in 2007) which distinguishes between cryptographic tools that require a simple declaration and those that require prior authorization. For instance:
- #declaration: required for cryptographic tools with basic security measures, such as SSL/TLS for secure website communications;
- #authorization: required for more advanced or military-grade cryptographic tools, where the encryption strength and the potential impact on national security are higher.

French regulations on cryptography are linked to the broader European Union framework on dual-use goods, which includes cryptographic technologies. Specifically, the European Dual-Use Regulation (2021/821), which is a part of the EU’s export control regime, governs the trade of dual-use items, including encryption tools, that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. 

 Grazie! Non sapevo! 🫂 

 After 2020 all of their shitty “laws” are illegal 

 AFUERA 

 The question here is:

Are other E2E encrypted services, like Whatsapp and as offered by Apple, required to ask for an authorization? Have they applied for and received one? If so, what were the requirements to receive the authorization?

Three thoughts:

If there were no special requirements, i.e., if the authorization is something trivial to obtain, there is no reason for Telegram not to apply and obtain it.

If there are unacceptable requirements, such as providing back doors to State actors, then Telegram was right to not pursue it. But then, what happens with Whatsapp and Apple?

If Whatsapp and Apple have not pursued the authorization, but neither have they been required to do so, why are they going after Telegram? 

 Be careful not to mix up the plans. This package of laws has nothing to do with ChatControl et similia and doesn't require the creation of backdoors or other tools that compromise encryption. In a nutshell the main aim here is simply to track who is using, importing, or exporting certain types of products that could be used for either civilian or military purposes (specifically, dual-use items). 

 Unfortunately there is no such thing as free speech garantied by a european constitution. The US definately has a better foundation there.  

 Well, free speech is protected across Europe primarily through the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an international treaty managed by the Council of Europe.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also enshrines the right to freedom of expression, applying to EU member states when they are implementing EU law. Even Italian Constitution specifically protects the right to freedom of expression. It states:
- everyone has the right to freely express their thoughts by word, in writing, and by any other means of communication.
- the press may not be subjected to any authorization or censorship.
However, like in many other democracies, freedom of speech is also subject to certain limitations like protecting national security, public safety, etc. The problem is…who decides where the border is? 

 Are you Italian? In any case, I followed you!

Personally I think in both the US and the EU there are several unacceptable restrictions to freedom of speech.
In Italy we sure have many.
We have laws against blasphemy, flag desecration, vilification of certain figures, hate speech (which I despise, but I think should be countered with words, not suppression, like all speech that furthers ideas which I deem wrong), as well as restrictions in the field of software (code is speech), such as those due to software patents (which, unlike copyright, can restrict computational ideas and even independent creation) and DRM (due to circumvention being illegal, with some exceptions, even if done for lawful purposes) and possibly more.