003-3717208-4236586

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 202 (2011)   20.10.2011   A high-security prisoner suffers broken ribs while in detention   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Alboreo v. France (application   no. 51019/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   A violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of   the European Convention on Human Rights concerning ill-treatment inflicted by the   special intervention forces.   A violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken together with Article 3   of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the lack of an effective   remedy against security transfer measures.   Principal facts   The applicant, Eric Alboreo, is a French national who was born in 1963 and lives in   Lannemezan (France).   On 24 January 1999 he was placed in pre-trial detention, accused of having taken part in   the robbery of an armoured vehicle during the course of which a courier was shot.   On 22 November 2002 the Bouches-de-Rhône Assize Court sentenced Mr Alboreo to   twenty years’ imprisonment for the offences with which he had been charged and   ordered that he be ineligible for parole for ten years.   Between 3 February 2000 and 26 November 2009 he was registered by the prison   authorities as a “high-risk prisoner”. He was therefore placed under a security regime   entailing, among other things, frequent changes of his place of detention and periods in   solitary confinement.   On 14 April 2003, while serving his sentence in Aix Luynes Prison, he escaped by   helicopter but was arrested on 9 May 2003 and returned to prison. On 19 January 2007   the Bouches-de-Rhône Assize Court sentenced him to an additional five years’   imprisonment for that escape.   Between 9 May 2003 and 16 July 2007 the applicant was transferred seventeen times   between various prisons throughout mainland France.   On 21 March 2006 Mr Alboreo applied to the urgent applications judge of the Toulouse   Administrative Court to have execution of the transfer measure suspended.   By an order of 10 April 2006 the urgent applications judge rejected the application. He   considered that that decision, which did not alter the detention regime applicable to Mr   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Alboreo, should be regarded as an internal regulatory measure which could not be set   aside on an application for judicial review.   By a judgment of 20 December 2006 the Conseil d’Etat, with which an appeal against   that order had been lodged, considered that it was not necessary to rule on the   application for suspension since the transfer decision at issue had been executed in full.   During one of those security rotations, Mr Alboreo was transferred to Toulouse-Seysses   Prison and placed in a cell in the solitary confinement wing. In protest against those   security rotations, he refused on several occasions to enter or to leave his cell. He was   consequently placed in the punishment block.   On completion of his period of disciplinary punishment, Mr Alboreo was to return to his   cell in the solitary confinement wing but given his earlier refusal, and following   altercations with guards on 26 and 27 November 2005, the prison authorities decided to   call on the regional intervention and security teams to force the applicant to leave the   punishment cell on 3 December 2005.   Following that intervention, Mr Alboreo lodged an ordinary complaint, followed by a   criminal complaint together with a civil party application, complaining of the conditions in   which he was being held. An investigation was carried out, resulting in a decision that   there was no case to answer.   Mr Alboreo then applied to the indictments chamber, which upheld the decision that   there was no case to answer. He lodged an appeal on a point of law which was dismissed   by a judgment of 3 February 2009.   From 16 July 2007 and until his release Mr Alboreo was held at Lannemezan Prison.   Eligible for release on 9 July 2018, he was released on licence on 17 March 2010 on   health grounds.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 3, the applicant complained of the security rotations to   which he had been subject during his imprisonment and the ill-treatment to which he   had been subjected during his time in solitary confinement and, more particularly, while   in the punishment block.   Relying on Article 13 taken together with Article 3, the applicant further complained of   the lack of an effective remedy by which to challenge the security rotation regime to   which he had been subject.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 October   2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), PRESIDENT,   Jean-Paul Costa (France),   Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic),   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),   Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein),   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco),   Angelika Nußberger (Germany), JUDGES,   and also Claudia Westerdiek, SECTION REGISTRAR.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   As to whether or not the applicant had been subjected to violence while in the   punishment cell   The Court reiterated that measures depriving a person of his liberty often involved an   element of suffering or humiliation. While that fact was inescapable, Article 3   nevertheless required that States ensured that all prisoners were detained in conditions   compatible with respect for their human dignity.   Ill-treatment had to attain a minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article   3. The assessment of that minimum depended on all the circumstances of the case, such   as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the   sex, age and state of health of the victim.   As regards the events of 26 and 27 November 2005, the Court noted that the medical   certificate mentioned only minor injuries not entailing temporary incapacity for work. It   therefore found that there had been no violation of Article 3 in connection with the facts   of the case.   Turning to 3 December 2005, officers of the regional intervention and security team had   intervened on three occasions and the medical certificate issued subsequent to the   events revealed in particular fractured ribs. The Court observed that the Government   made no comment on that fracture despite the fact that the applicant had been in   detention.   In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force not made strictly   necessary by his own conduct diminished human dignity and was in principle an   infringement of the right guaranteed under Article 3.   The French Government indicated that the various officers had given assurances that   they had used only that force that had been strictly necessary having regard to the   applicant’s conduct.   However, the Court was of the view that the applicant’s claims were plausible given the   way in which the operations had been conducted and, in particular, the fact that the   applicant, who was 1.72m tall and weighed 66kg, had been overpowered by four officers   of the regional intervention and security team and pinned to the ground on two   occasions.   The Court considered that in the instant case, the Government’s failure to provide an   explanation and the fact that it was impossible to establish the exact circumstances in   which the applicant had been injured while being restrained by officers of the State, did   not prevent it from finding a substantive breach of Article 3.   The Court therefore considered that Mr Alboreo had been subjected to inhuman and   degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.   As to the applicant’s complaints concerning the security rotations and being placed in   solitary confinement   The Court considered in the instant case that given Mr Alboreo’s profile and history and   the danger he represented, the prison authorities had struck a fair balance between   security requirements and the need to ensure that the prisoner was held in conditions   compatible with human dignity.   Article 13 taken together with Article 3   The Court reiterated that Article 13 of the Convention guaranteed the availability of a   remedy at national level to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms   in whatever form they may happen to have been secured in the domestic legal order. It   considered that the effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of Article 13 did not   depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant.   The Court noted that the fact that it had found that there had been no violation of Article   concerning the security rotations to which the applicant had been subject did not mean   that his complaint had not been arguable.   The Government stated that until the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Conseil   d’Etat had consistently held that administrative transfer decisions were not actionable   administrative acts, but were included in the category of internal regulatory measures   which were not amenable to judicial review.   However, in three Assembly decisions of 14 December 2007, the Conseil d’Etat extended   the right of prisoners to apply to the administrative court, in particular in connection with   security rotations.   The Court considered that the effectiveness of the remedy referred to by the   Government in relation to the applicant’s transfers during the period of his imprisonment   had not been established. In fact, it was by a judgment of 14 December 2007 that the   Conseil d’Etat had acknowledged that a decision subjecting a detainee to a security   regime did not constitute an internal regulatory measure, but an administrative decision   amenable to judicial review.   The Court accordingly concluded that at the material time no effective remedy had been   available to Mr Alboreo to assert his rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding   his repeated transfers. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13 of the   Convention taken together with Article 3.   Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that France was to   pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   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.   5