European Court of Human Rights
19 November 2020
Facts
The applicant received compensation from the domestic courts for the non-pecuniary damage he had suffered because of the inadequate conditions during his four months’ detention in prison.
Complaint
The applicant complained that the compensation he had sought was ineffective, given the inadequacy of the remedy he had obtained because of the small amount awarded (500 euros) and the fact that he had been charged the costs of the expert examination (773 euros) to inspect the cells which he had occupied in prison. The applicant relied on Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy).
Court’s ruling
The Court first found that the general scheme of the compensation remedy available before the French administrative court on account of the conditions of detention had met the requirements of Article 13. Indeed, this remedy enabled the applicant to obtain compensation for the damage he suffered. However, in the present case, the effectiveness of the remedy had to be assessed on the basis of the net total of the sums awarded by the domestic courts. The applicant had been ordered to pay for the expert examination and this sum was higher than the small amount of money awarded to him as. As a result, the applicant found himself owing 273 euros to the State, even though the State had been held liable for compensation. The Court considered that the result of the applicant’s action deprived the remedy of its effectiveness. The Court therefore found that Article 13 of the Convention had been violated.