CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 septembre 2007

.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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 100 August-September 2007 V.T. v. France - 37194/02 Judgment 11.9.2007 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Allegation by the applicant that she was forced by the conduct of the family-allowance-contribution collection agency to continue to work as a prostitute: no violation Facts : As part of a scheme designed to enable her to give up prostitution, the applicant applied to the Paris social-security and family-allowance contributions agency (the URSSAF) to be registered as a self-employed decorator. She was assisted in making her application by a non-governmental organisation campaigning to put an end to prostitution. The URSSAF official gave the applicant a paper to sign containing a sworn statement to the effect that she was engaged in prostitution and had never worked as a decorator. On the basis of that statement, the URSSAF registered the applicant under the heading of “unspecified occupation” and sent her several demands for the payment of contributions and surcharges for late payment. When the applicant’s name was entered also in the “liberal professions” category, the same agency demanded further payments from her. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged payment orders covering a period of several years. She was requested to pay at least EUR 33,000 in contributions, plus at least EUR 5,196 in surcharges. The applicant submitted that requiring persons engaged in prostitution to pay family‑allowance contributions constituted a major obstacle to their reintegration into society, since any income that might be derived from alternative employment schemes would not be sufficient to pay the amounts requested by the URSSAF in respect of the time spent in prostitution. Hence, individuals were left with no choice but to continue working as prostitutes, generating more income and hence more contributions. Law : For a domestic authority or agency to force someone, by whatever means, to work or continue to work as a prostitute amounted to “inhuman or degrading treatment” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. There was no reason to doubt the applicant’s good faith in wishing to give up prostitution. In view of the method used to calculate the contributions payable to the URSSAF by self-employed persons (including prostitutes) and of the penalties and collection procedures in place, self‑employed persons who ceased their activity had to have access to funds in order to be able to pay at a later date the contributions due in respect of their earlier occupation. The applicant had been requested to pay a total of EUR 40,000 in contributions and surcharges. These considerable sums had been charged to her retrospectively, at a time when she had no income other than that derived from prostitution. The obligation to pay these recurring debts had made it difficult for her to give up prostitution, which was her sole source of income, and had hindered her attempts at reintegration. However, that was not sufficient to conclude that the applicant had been forced as a result to continue working as a prostitute. Neither the URSSAF nor any other agency or authority had ever required her to pay the contributions and surcharges by continuing to work as a prostitute. The applicant had not provided any real evidence that she had been completely unable to pay by any other means. While the URSSAF had sent her demands for payment systematically over a period of years – although her distress and difficulty in paying were made fairly clear by the fact that she almost invariably challenged the payment orders before the courts – the agency had none the less been willing to put in place measures to assist her, such as payment in instalments. The URSSAF had responded favourably to a request for payment in instalments; however, the applicant had not subsequently requested any other measures of that kind. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one); no separate issue under Article 4 (unanimously).     © 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