A detainee was compensated with 500 euros for detention conditions in his cell and he was forced to pay 773 euros for the expertise made for the detention conditions! Violation of the ECHR
JUDGMENT
Barbotin v. France 19.11.2020 (app. no. 25338/16)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the compensation awarded to the applicant by the domestic courts in respect of
his conditions of detention in Caen remand prison. The applicant complained of the ineffectiveness
of the compensatory remedy of which he had availed himself, in view of the low amount awarded
and the fact that he had had to pay the expert’s fees incurred to inspect the cells in which he had
been held.
The Court ruled that the applicant had benefited from an appropriate remedy affording him
compensation for the damage which he had sustained. This was the first time the compensatory
remedy exercised before a French administrative court on grounds of inhuman conditions of
detention had been acknowledged as being effective under Article 13 of the Convention. In the
present case, however, the domestic court had decided to order the applicant to pay the expert’s
fees on the grounds that the expert assessment ordered at first instance had been cancelled on
appeal. On account of the modest amount which had been awarded to the applicant in
compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by his conditions of detention, which had been
incompatible with human dignity, he had thus found himself, after receipt of his compensatory
remedy, owing the State 273.57 euros (EUR). The Court considered that the outcome of the
proceedings brought by the applicant had deprived the remedy of its effectiveness.
PROVISIONS
Article 13
Article 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Jean-Claude Barbotin, is a French national who was born in 1951 and lives in SaintBrieuc (France).
Mr Barbotin was detained in Caen remand prison from 28 August to 1 September 2008 and
subsequently from 4 November 2008 to 27 July 2010. On 15 June 2010 he requested that the urgent
applications judge of the Caen Administrative Court appoint an expert to inspect the state of his cells
in the remand prison. By order of 16 June 2010 the urgent applications judge allowed the request
and appointed an expert, who submitted a report.
The expert found that four of the six cells occupied by the applicant were in a good overall state, and
that the fifth had been completely renovated. The sixth cell, which measured 16 m² and which
Mr Barbotin had shared with four other detainees, was in a bad condition, run-down and badly lit,
and had insufficient air for five adults.
By order of 6 September 2010 the Administrative Court estimated the cost of the expert assessment
at EUR 773.57. That amount was charged to the State, which was declared liable for the advance
payment of the legal aid for which the applicant was eligible. Concurrently, the Justice Minister
lodged a third-party appeal against the order of 16 June 2010, arguing that the expert report had
been unnecessary since an expert report had already been drawn up on the conditions of detention
in Caen remand prison. By order of 28 July 2010, the urgent applications judge at Caen
Administrative Court dismissed the request. The Justice Minister appealed against that ruling, which
was set aside by judgment of the Nantes Administrative Court of Appeal on 27 January 2011. On
26 January 2012 the Conseil d’État dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
On 31 August 2012 Mr Barbotin filed an action for damages against the State, seeking compensation
for the damage resulting from his conditions of detention at Caen remand prison. By judgment of
28 May 2013, the Caen Administrative Court ruled that during his detention, which had lasted some
24 months, the applicant had, for just over four months, from 27 January 2010 to 2 June 2010, been
held in conditions of detention incompatible with respect for human dignity, and ordered the State
to pay him 500 euros (EUR) in compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Administrative Court also ordered the applicant to defray the costs of the expert assessment,
totalling EUR 773.57, on the grounds that the order of 16 June 2010 commissioning the expert
report had been cancelled.
On 2 December 2015 the Conseil d’État dismissed the main appeal on points of law lodged by the
applicant and the cross-appeal lodged by the Ministry of Justice.
Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) read in conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of
inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant complained of the ineffectiveness of the
compensatory remedy which he had exercised before the domestic courts, inasmuch as the amount
awarded in compensation had been was insufficient and the order to defray the costs of the expert
report had led to his owing money to the French State.
