Vincent v France</B> - 6253/03 [2009] ECHR 1686 (30 September 2009)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the degrading treatment suffered by the applicant, who is paraplegic, on account of his detention from 17 February to 11 June 2003 in a prison (Fresnes prison) where he could not move around independently (violation of Article 3) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

This case concerns degrading treatment of the applicant during his detention from 17 February 2003 until 11 June 2003 at Fresnes prison. Being a disabled person in a wheelchair, he could not move about and, in particular, leave his cell on his own (violation of Article 3).

The European Court took particular account of the fact that, to get through doors, the applicant had to be carried while one wheel of his wheelchair was dismantled, then reassembled once the wheelchair had passed the doorway, which may be considered as humiliating and demeaning in addition to the fact that the applicant was completely reliant on other people's availability.

Since 2 October 2006 (except for temporary stays in other prisons between 5 August and 9 September 2008), the applicant has been detained in Liancourt prison which, although old, has individual cells on the ground floor, where the medical department is situated and detainees' activities are held. The information given to the Committee of Ministers shows that, unlike the conditions existing from February to June 2003 in Fresnes prison, criticised by the European Court (no violation having been found in respect of the conditions of detention in other prisons), the applicant may now move about and, in particular, leave his cell unaided.

This was ascertained, in the first place, by the administrative judge (President of the Administrative Tribunal of Amiens), whom the applicant seised with a complaint about his detention conditions at the Liancourt prison, which he considered inappropriate in view of his disability. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. It is up to the national courts who have been seised of his complaints and who apply the Convention directly, to ensure, in particular following the European Court's judgment, that the applicant's conditions of detention comply with the Convention's requirements.

The findings relating to the applicant's present detention conditions were also confirmed by the French Ombudsman (Médiateur de la République), an independent authority. Following a written request from the applicant, the Ombudsman sent two of his colleagues to inspect Mr. Vincent's conditions of detention. He concluded in particular that Mr. Vincent has “sufficient possibilities of moving unaided” (in his wheelchair, he can go through the building's doors, negotiate the slopes alone, has an individual cell, can use a shower equipped with a seat etc.).

The applicant's detention (which, according to the present situation, should end on 11 March 2010) seems to offer sufficient guarantees.

The Court found (§101) “that applicant and government agreed on the fact that the short-stay prison of Fresnes, a very old building, is particularly inappropriate for the detention of physically disabled persons”.

It is possible to avoid new, similar violations by ensuring, on a case-by-case basis, that disabled persons are detained in a prison on the French territory, on the basis of their specific facilities (see below) so as to ensure that the available equipment fulfils the needs of the persons concerned.

The Directorate of Prison Administration, directly responsible to the Ministry of Justice, is the competent authority in this respect. Its attention has been drawn to the findings of this judgment. The judgment has been communicated to the courts concerned and also presented in a table published on the Ministry of Justice intranet site (table listing all the judgments and decisions delivered by the Court during the year, indicating in particular the complaints in respect of which the Court found a violation or a non-violation, as well as complaints declared inadmissible). Furthermore, this judgment, as all judgments against France, has been sent out to the courts and to the directorates of the Ministry of Justice concerned. It was also presented in detail in the Bulletin d'information de la Cour de cassation No. 651 of 1 December 2006. Various specialist articles have also been published in widely read legal journals.

Concerning the phases of work planned in relation to prison facilities, the following details may be noted:

At present, the prisons administration has 118 cells at its disposal for motor-disabled detainees. These cells are predominantly situated in short-stay prisons. To optimise the existing system, the directorate of the prisons administration has recently introduced a system to manage the cells for disabled persons. A map of existing places and of the specific requests is kept up to date in order to best reconcile the penal, penitentiary and health requirements in each given case. This system also makes it possible to anticipate situations. In old prisons which are to remain open, successive phases of works are scheduled each year. Whenever technically possible, cells for disabled persons will be set up. At the Liancourt detention centre, where Mr Vincent is currently detained, there will be a new building of 80 places, with 20 cells specially designed for disabled persons. In the reorganisation of Fleury-Merogis, Marseille and Nantes prisons the provision of 26, 6 and 3 cells for disabled persons respectively is planned before 2014. A construction program of 13 200 extra places in the French penitentiary system has begun. These places will include 1% of cells adapted for disabled persons. Movement and access to all activities and facilities have been examined, bearing in mind the presence of disabled persons, be they detainees, visitors, voluntary workers or staff. Finally, under the 11 February 2005 Act, all forms of handicap must be taken into account in public buildings receiving the public within ten years. Disability provision in prisons will be specifically handled in a joint decree of the Ministries of Equipment and of Justice which will fix accessibility rules for future constructions and for existing prisons. The situation is evolving towards adjusting all French prisons to the presence of handicapped persons from 2015 onwards.

The efforts by the French authorities to improve the way in which prisoners are treated will continue, not least in the framework of their co-operation with the CPT. In this respect, the French authorities recall that in its answer to the CPT's report on its visits to French prisons in 2006 (document CPT/Inf(2007)45 of 10 December 2007), the government expresses its belief that the CPT's visits, combined with other similar mechanisms, contribute to the improvement of the treatment of prisoners and to the respect for their fundamental rights. The adoption by the French Parliament of Law No. 2007-1545 of 30 October 2007, setting-up the post of General Controller of Places of Detention, apart from implementing the Optional Protocol to the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, also shows the will of the French authorities to work towards better respect of fundamental rights of prisoners.

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 September 2009 at the 1065th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	4 000 euros	-	4 000 euros
Paid on 28/10/2007 + interest

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Vincent v France</B> - 6253/03 [2009] ECHR 1686 (30 September 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1686.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1686