Information Note on the Court’s case-law 182
February 2015
Helhal v. France - 10401/12
Judgment 19.2.2015 [Section V]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Lack of physiotherapy and of adequate access to sanitary facilities for severely disabled prisoner: violation
Facts – The applicant, who has suffered since 2006 from paraplegia of the lower limbs and double incontinence, is currently serving a thirty-year prison sentence. In August 2010 he applied to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences to have his sentence suspended on medical grounds. He complained that the prison premises were not adapted to his disability, as a result of which he could only move around in a wheelchair, that he had to be assisted in taking a shower by another prisoner assigned to him for that purpose, and that the physiotherapy he received was inadequate. In February 2011 the court responsible for the execution of sentences rejected his application and found, taking into account two concurring expert medical opinions, that the applicant’s state of health was compatible with imprisonment. However, the court observed that the prison was not adapted to the applicant’s needs and that other establishments existed that would be better equipped to receive him. The appeals lodged by the applicant against that judgment were dismissed.
Law – Article 3: As the applicant had a disability which left him largely confined to a wheelchair – although he could apparently walk at times with the aid of walking sticks or a walking frame – his complaints were examined in the light of the principles governing the State’s duty of care towards individuals with disabilities, in view of their vulnerability when it came to dealing with the hardships of detention.
As to the quality of the care provided to the applicant in detention, and in particular the question whether the national authorities had done everything that could reasonably be expected of them to provide him with the rehabilitative treatment he needed and offer him some prospect of an improvement in his condition, no physiotherapy had been provided in the prison for three years. Throughout that period, no specific measures had been taken nor had any efforts been made to enable the applicant to have physiotherapy sessions adapted to his condition, in spite of the doctors’ repeated recommendations that he be treated in a specialist setting. The attitude of the applicant, who had apparently been reluctant to seek a transfer because of the distance from his family, was not sufficient to justify the inaction of the prison and health care authorities.
With regard to the conditions of detention and access to the sanitary facilities, and especially the showers, the applicant was unable to get to the facilities unaided since they were not located within the cell, nor were they wheelchair-accessible. Furthermore, in view of the applicant’s condition, the prisoner assigned to assist him with daily tasks had to help him wash, a situation that had been deemed unacceptable by the Inspector General of Prisons. Although the legislature had made provision in 2009 for all prisoners with a disability to designate a carer of their own choosing, such a measure – even assuming that the relevant criteria had been met in the instant case – was not sufficient to cater for the needs of the applicant, who found showering difficult because of his incontinence, the lack of privacy and the fact that a fellow prisoner was given the task of assisting him. That assistance was not provided in addition to any care dispensed by health care professionals, and the prisoner assigned to help the applicant had not received the training required to assist a person suffering from a disability. In that connection the Court had held on several occasions that where assistance was provided, even willingly, by a fellow prisoner, this did not mean that the applicant’s special needs had been met or that the State had fulfilled its obligations in that regard under Article 3 of the Convention.
In sum, while the applicant’s continuing detention was not in itself incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention, the domestic authorities had not provided him with the care required in order to protect him against treatment contrary to that provision. In view of his severe disability and the fact that he was doubly incontinent, the length of time he had spent in detention without any rehabilitative treatment, in an establishment where he could take a shower only with the help of a fellow prisoner, had subjected the applicant to hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. Those circumstances amounted to degrading treatment in breach of Article 3. The fact that there was nothing to suggest that the authorities had acted with the intention of humiliating or debasing the applicant did nothing to alter that finding.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy