European Court of Human Rights
30 January 2020
Facts
The applicants were detained in different French prisons. Their conditions of detention varied in terms of the amount of personal space they were allocated and other aspects of their imprisonment. While they were in prison some of the applicants lodged administrative complaints with the administrative courts. The courts allowed the complaints in part and ordered measures to address certain aspects of the applicants’ conditions of detention, particularly with regard to hygiene standards. Some of the applicants also made use of a compensatory remedy, bringing actions for compensation against the State in the administrative courts, resulting in awards of damages.
Complaint
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention and of the lack of an effective preventive remedy in that regard.
Court’s ruling
The Court ruled that there was a violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court found that the preventive remedy (“référé liberté”) was ineffective in practice as a means of putting an end to inadequate conditions of detention linked to prison overcrowding. For example, the Court noted that the judge had very limited powers in the case of a preventive remedy. Indeed, the judge could only impose limited and one-off measures which generally have little effect on the conditions of detention, instead of structural measures (such as the renovation of a building). The Court also emphasised that the execution of these measures was subject to time limits that are not in line with the requirements and that these measures did not always produce the expected results. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention.