Council of State
6 December 2013
Facts
The applicant was a disabled prisoner who could only move around in a wheelchair. He had spent several days in an ordinary cell before being placed in a medical cell, located in an area specially equipped for disabled prisoners.
Complaint
The applicant complained that his conditions of detention were contrary to his human dignity and asked for compensation from the prison administration. His claim was accepted but the applicant argued that the Court of Appeal underestimated the amount of provision awarded to him in compensation for the moral prejudice he suffered. He appealed further to the Council of State and invoked Article 3 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court explained the different criteria that should be used to assess whether the conditions of detention violated the dignity of the prisoner. The first element to be considered is the vulnerability of the prisoner, which depends on their age, health, disability and personality. The second and third criteria are the nature and duration of the breaches. The last one is the reasons that justify these violations. The Court ruled that if it is found, after using these criteria, that the conditions of detention violated a prisoner’s human dignity, this would reveal the existence of a fault committed by the prison administration which would be sufficient to engage the responsibility of the administration. However, the Court found that in the present case the conditions of detention did not reach a sufficient degree of seriousness, and therefore rejected the applicant’s appeal.