CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 11 juillet 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   417 11.7.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RIVIÈRE v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Rivière v. France (application no. 33834/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as the conditions of the applicant’s detention were not appropriate for a person with a mental disorder.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Jean-Luc Rivière is a French national who was born on 30 November 1956. He is currently detained in Riom Prison (France).   On 17 October 1980 the Pas-de-Calais Assize Court sentenced the applicant to death for murder, aiding and abetting murder preceded by another serious offence, and theft. On 12 February 1982 the Somme Assize Court, to which the case had been referred by the Court of Cassation, sentenced him to life imprisonment with ineligibility for parole for 15 years.   The applicant was married in Riom Prison in October 1990. Having served the minimum period in which parole was impossible, he has been eligible for release since 31 July 1991.   In July 2002 the regional parole court dismissed an application for the applicant’s release on licence, finding that there were no clear and structured plans to provide him with proper social, educational, medical and psychological support on his release.   In the context of his subsequent appeal the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist from the Val-de-Reuil Regional Medical and Psychiatric Department. In August 2002 the doctor issued a certificate stating that the applicant was psychotic with suicidal tendencies and that his condition required hospital treatment. The following day, by order of the prefect of the département of Eure, the applicant was compulsorily admitted to hospital for one month.   After making a fresh application to be released on licence, the applicant was examined by three psychiatric experts in October 2003. The experts concluded that the applicant, whose psychiatric disorder had emerged during his time in prison, was now suffering from a chronic mental illness, in particular involving a compulsion towards self-strangulation.   In January 2004 the regional parole court refused an application for the applicant’s release on licence, holding that although his condition had improved in psychiatric terms, his proposal to live in Clermont-Ferrand on his release with a wife with whom he had never previously cohabited was unfeasible.   An appeal by the applicant against that decision was dismissed.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 20 October 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   András Baka (Hungarian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained about his continued imprisonment in spite of his psychiatric problems.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted, among other things, that the applicant had received psychiatric and psychological support throughout his time in Val-de-Reuil Prison from October 2001 to September 2004. In addition, he had twice been compulsorily admitted to hospital, in August and November 2002, and since his arrival at Riom Prison in January 2005 he had been seeing a psychiatrist once a month and a psychiatric nurse once a week. The Court was aware in those circumstances that the prison authorities had not remained passive and had made efforts to alleviate the applicant’s mental disorder from a medical point of view.   However, the Court noted that Article D. 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that prisoners with mental disorders could not be held in an ordinary prison but were to be compulsorily admitted to hospital by order of the prefect. That provision was confirmed by Article L. 3214-1 of the Public Health Code, which stated that detainees suffering from mental disorders should be admitted to a specially designed wing of an ordinary health-care institution. The Court further observed that Recommendation No. R (98) 7 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison provided that prisoners suffering from serious mental disturbance should be kept and cared for in a hospital facility that was adequately equipped and possessed appropriately trained staff.   Lastly, the Court pointed out that prisoners with serious mental disorders and suicidal tendencies required special measures geared to their condition, regardless of the seriousness of the offence of which they had been convicted.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant’s continued detention without medical supervision appropriate to his current condition entailed particularly acute hardship and caused him distress or adversity of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. It accordingly concluded that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of his continued detention in such conditions.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Judge Cabral Barreto expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.