Council of State
3 December 2018
Facts
The applicant was detained in a prison that suffered from severe overcrowding. During his detention, he occupied several collective cells of 12 m² which were designed for two people but were occupied by three prisoners. These cells only had one window located in a corner of the room, whose opening was insufficient to provide natural light throughout the cell and ensure ventilation. These cells were equipped with toilets which were placed in a way that prevented any form of privacy and led to hygiene risks.
Complaint
The applicant complained that his conditions of detention were contrary to his human dignity and asked for compensation from the prison administration for the prejudice he suffered. He invoked Article 3 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court reiterated the different elements that must been considered when determining whether the conditions of detention violated the dignity of the prisoner. These include the prisoner’s vulnerability and the nature and duration of the breaches observed. The Court then added specific criteria that should be used when assessing the conditions of detention: individual living space for prisoners, promiscuity with other inmates, level of privacy granted to prisoners, configuration of the premises, access to light, hygiene, and quality of sanitary and heating installations. The Court explained that only conditions of detention that violated human dignity, assessed in the light of these criteria, could reveal the existence of a fault likely to engage the responsibility of the prison administration. Such a violation, if it was characterised, would likely to cause, by itself, moral prejudice for the person who is the victim, which it is the State's responsibility to repair. The Council of State found that, in the present case, the applicant had suffered from conditions of detention that violated his human dignity, and therefore the Court condemned the State to compensate the applicant for his loss.