CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 novembre 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 179 November 2014 Bodein v. France - 40014/10 Judgment 13.11.2014 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading punishment Inhuman punishment Life imprisonment with possibility of review after 30   years’ imprisonment: no violation Facts – On 2 October 2008 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for three murders, including two committed against minors under the age of fifteen, preceded or accompanied by rape. As the applicant was a recidivist, having a previous conviction in 1996, the Assize Court decided that no sentence adjustment measures could be granted. Law – Article 3 ( substantive head ): In accordance with the principles established by the Grand Chamber in Vinter and Others v.   the United Kingdom , it was appropriate to examine the prospects for review of sentence provided by French law. Article 720-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that after a thirty-year prison term a convicted person can benefit from a sentence adjustment measure. The review of the applicant’s situation after thirty years’ imprisonment was geared to reaching a decision on his dangerousness and taking account of how he has changed while serving his sentence. The provision in question provided for a judicial review of the whole-life term, which could be requested by the prosecutor’s office or the prisoner, with a view to verifying whether there were legitimate grounds for continued imprisonment. If the Assize Court’s special decision not to grant any form of sentence adjustment was rescinded, the applicant would become eligible for such measures, including release on parole. The Court could not speculate on the outcome of such a mechanism since it had not yet been used in practice; it noted, however, that it left no uncertainty as to the existence of a “prospect of release” from the time of imposition of the sentence. Furthermore, the Constitutional Council had validated the impugned provisions of the Law of 1   February 1994 establishing an irreducible sentence on the grounds that the post-sentencing judge could rescind the special decision “in the light of the conduct of the convicted prisoner and changes in his personality”. As regards the possible timing of the judicial review, even though the thirty-year deadline went beyond the clear international trend towards scheduling a review twenty-five years at the latest after the imposition of the life sentence, the wording of the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulating a period of at least thirty years implied that the whole period of deprivation of liberty undergone from the time of the detention order should be included in calculating the total period of imprisonment, that is to say the starting point for the whole-life term. It is a case of applying, mutatis mutandis , the principle set out in Article 716-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that any detention on remand effected during proceedings should be deducted from the prison sentence imposed. In 2034, therefore, twenty-six years after the imposition of the life sentence on 2   October 2008, the applicant would be able to apply to the post-sentencing judge for rescission of the special decision of the Assize Court not to grant him any form of sentence adjustment and to be granted release on parole, if appropriate. In view of the margin of appreciation available to States in matters of criminal justice and sentencing, the possibility of obtaining a review of life sentences was sufficient to conclude that the sentence imposed on the applicant was reducible for the purposes of Article   3 of the Convention. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). The Court also unanimously concluded that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1, considering that the applicant had had sufficient safeguards enabling him to understand why he had been found guilty. (See Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, 9   July 2013, Information Note   165 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes