Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)162[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Ramirez Sanchez against France
(Application No. 59450/00, judgment of 04/07/2006, final on 04/07/2006)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the absence of an effective remedy to contest the measures extending the solitary confinement of the applicant from 1994 to 2002 (violation of article 13) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)162
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Ramirez Sanchez against France
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the absence in domestic law of a remedy to contest the measures extending the applicant’s placement in solitary confinement between 15 August 1994 and 17 October 2002 (violation of Article 13). The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1997. At the time of the disputed facts, both the placement in solitary confinement and the decisions of prolongation were assimilated to internal order measures against which no jurisdictional remedy could be brought.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
-
10 000 EUR
10 000 EUR
Paid on 19/10/2006
b) Individual measures
The Court found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention for a period from August 1994 to October 17, 2002, due to the absence of a domestic remedy to contest the measures extending solitary confinement taken against the applicant during that period (§ 166 of the judgment). The Court also noted that, by a decision of 30/07/2003, the Council of State had established that a measure of solitary confinement could be brought before the administrative judge which, where appropriate, may order the annulment in the context of an ultra vires appeal “(§ 164 of the judgment, see also "General measures", below). The Court further noted that the measure of solitary confinement ended on 06/01/2006. The French authorities also confirm that the payment of just satisfaction was made under conditions accepted by the applicant.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
By a decision of 30/07/2003, the Council of State has accepted the possibility to appeal against a solitary confinement measure before an administrative judge which, in such a case, may order the annulment in the context of an ultra vires appeal “considering the seriousness of its impact on detention conditions” (judgment of 30/07/2003 in the case of the Minister of Justice versus Remli).
The regime of solitary confinement was reviewed by two decrees modifying the Code of Criminal Procedure (respectively Decree No 2006-338 related to prisoners’ solitary confinement, and Decree No 2006-337 related to decisions taken by the Prison Administration, which both came into force on 1st June 2006). The prison staff have been provided with detailed information on the new applicable rules through a circular issued by the Directorate of the Prison Administration (JUSK0640117C dated 24 May 2006) and benefited from appropriate trainings.
It should be noted that in a later judgment, Khider against France (judgment of 09/07/2009, final on 09/10/2009), the Court expressly held that the applicant in that case had an "effective remedy" to contest the measures of solitary confinement within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention (§ 140 of the judgment).
Finally, Article 92 of Law No 2009-1436 dated 24 November 2009, known as the Prison Act, introduced into the legislative part of the Code of Criminal Procedure an Article 726-1, which deals with solitary confinement of administrative nature.
Decisions of administrative solitary confinement and of its potential prolongation are now considered as “individual administrative acts” likely to be subject of an ultra vires appeal or an urgent application before administrative courts. It may also be noted that the normative framework, set up by the Prison Act and the aforementioned decrees dated 21 March 2006, grants the prisoner additional guarantees in the context of the proceedings for placement in solitary confinement or the prolongation of the measure, including: the possibility for the prisoner to be assisted or represented by a lawyer, if applicable under legal aid, and to acquaint oneself with his file; the obligation to reason the decision; the possibility to submit observations before the Judge competent for the supervision of the sentences; etc. Moreover, pursuant to the administrative practice of ordinary law, the decision shall be notified to the prisoner together with information related to appeals and deadlines for appealing, whether in the decision itself or in a notification form the prisoner is required to sign.
The European Court’s judgment was circulated to concerned courts and services, and published on the intranet site of the Ministry of Justice, together with comments.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no other individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2010 at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy