CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 octobre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   626 24.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT VINCENT v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Vincent v. France (application no. 6253/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the fact that it had been impossible for the applicant, who is a paraplegic, to move around Fresnes Prison autonomously.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 4,000   euros (EUR) for damages. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Olivier Vincent, is a French national who was born in 1970. He is currently detained in Chateaudun Prison (France), where he is serving a ten-year prison sentence imposed on 4 March 2005.   The applicant, paraplegic since an accident in 1989, is autonomous, but cannot move around without the aid of a wheelchair. His application concerned the conditions of his detention and its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights in view of his physical disability.   On 25 November 2002 the applicant was placed under formal investigation and detained in Nanterre Prison on suspicion of involvement in the abduction of a seven-month-old infant. He made various applications for bail, all of which were dismissed. After initially being held in Nanterre Prison, the applicant was subsequently held in Fresnes Prison, Cergy-Pontoise Prison, Meaux-Chauconin Prison and La Santé Prison in Paris.   Since first entering prison, Mr Vincent has made various complaints to domestic and international bodies about his prison conditions.   He alleged that his cell in Nanterre Prison was not designed for wheelchairs and that he experienced practical difficulties on a daily basis.   In February 2003 he was transferred to Fresnes Prison. He alleged that that prison was also not designed to house disabled prisoners, particularly on account of the narrowness of the doors, which he could not pass through in a wheelchair. He had consequently been forced into a position of dependency on others. He had been unable to take part in sporting or cultural activities and had experienced difficulties in using the showers in his cell.   The applicant was transferred to Cergy-Pontoise Remand Prison in June 2003. He claimed that he was unable to gain access to the prison library without assistance and also complained that he had been prevented from having a shower for more than a month after essential alterations to the unit were delayed. In February 2005 he was transferred to Meaux Prison where he was given an individual cell adapted to his disability and was able to use a lift that enabled him to attend a medical centre on the first floor for medical attention when needed.   On 21 March 2006 he was transferred to Villepinte Prison, where he maintained that the conditions were not appropriate in view of his disability.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 January 2003. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 June 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   András Baka (Hungarian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the conditions in which he was detained were not adapted to his disability. He relied in particular on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Decision of the Court   The Court unanimously declared the application admissible with regard to the complaint that it was impossible for the applicant to move about Fresnes Prison without assistance and inadmissible as to the remainder.   Article 3 of the Convention   The Court noted that the applicant and the French Government both acknowledged that Fresnes Prison, a very old building, was particularly unsuited to the imprisonment of persons with a physical handicap who could move about only in a wheelchair. Although the cells had been adapted with regard to furniture and sanitary facilities, it was nonetheless the case that the applicant could neither leave his cell nor move about the prison independently.   The fact that, in order to pass through a door, the applicant had had to be carried while a wheel on his wheelchair was removed, then refitted once the wheelchair had been taken through the door, could indeed be considered debasing or humiliating. In addition, the applicant had been entirely subject to other people’s availability. Moreover, Mr   Vincent had lived in such conditions for four months, although the situation had been noted by the prison integration and probation service and by a doctor, and he could have been transferred to one of the many other prisons in the Paris region.   There was no evidence of any positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However, the Court considered that to detain a handicapped person in a prison where he could not move about and, in particular, could not leave his cell independently, amounted to “degrading treatment” within the meaning of Article 3.   Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 in that respect and considered that the other complaints concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Fresnes Prison did not attain the level of severity required for a violation of Article 3.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   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.