Information Note on the Court’s case-law 67
August-September 2004
Léger v. France (dec.) - 19324/02
Decision 21.9.2004 [Section II]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Continued imprisonment on basis of conviction forty years ago: admissible
Article 5
Article 5-1-a
After conviction
Continued detention of person convicted 40 years ago and eligible for parole 25 years ago: admissible
The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1966 by an assize court. He had been placed in detention on remand in July 1964. He was found guilty of the abduction and manslaughter of a child. There were mitigating circumstances. The assize court did not accept the classification of murder and the prosecuting authorities did not call for any specific sentence. The applicant had admitted the offences while in police custody. He retracted his statements ten months later and has consistently protested his innocence ever since. In 1979, on expiry of a probationary period of 15 years’ imprisonment, the applicant became eligible for parole. He applied for parole on several occasions but was met with systematic refusals. He also applied unsuccessfully for pardon. In 1999 the Parole Board ruled in favour of his parole. This opinion was based on a report by several experts, who referred to five previous reports drawn up by nine psychiatrists. The judge responsible for the execution of sentences issued a concurring opinion, which was based on the applicant’s favourable clinical examination and the fact that his relatives had undertaken to house him and provide him with steady employment. A law of 15 June 2000 reformed the procedure for granting parole to long-term prisoners. On that basis, the Justice Minister decided to dismiss the applicant’s request and apply the new procedure to his case. In the context of this new procedure, two opinions were issued in favour of granting the applicant parole. The authorities with jurisdiction for ruling on the question, instituted under the new procedure, finally refused to grant the applicant’s request for parole in 2001, noting in particular that he denied having committed the offences on which his 1966 conviction had been based. In 2004 the applicant, aged 67, began his fortieth year of imprisonment. He complained before the Court about the successive dismissals of his requests for parole and submitted that his continued imprisonment was now arbitrary and discriminatory. He added that, without a possibility of early release, his sentence was equivalent to imprisonment on “death row”.
Admissible under Articles 3 and 5 § 1 (a). The Court will examine the compatibility of the applicant’s continued detention with the Convention from the date of the relevant domestic decision given at last instance in 2001. However, given its jurisdiction rationetemporis, the Court will take into account the length of the applicant’s imprisonment since the Convention entered into force in respect of France in 1974.
© 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