Arrest and police detention of two people in a state of intoxication for damage of foreign property. No finding of degrading treatment
JUDGMENT
P.M. and F.F. v. France 18.2.2021 (no. 60324/15)
SUMMARY
The case concerned injuries sustained by the two applicants during their arrest in Paris on 1 January
2007, in a state of inebriation, for the offence of damaging private property, and during their police
custody.
Considered under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, unconditionally prohibiting
torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the Court found that the investigations into the
applicants’ allegations had been carried out speedily and carefully by the national authorities, which
were sufficiently independent. Those authorities had made serious efforts to establish the facts
before presenting their conclusions in detailed and duly reasoned decisions. The authorities had thus
fulfilled their obligation to use their best endeavours to conduct an effective investigation.
Under the substantive aspect of Article 3, the Court noted the inconsistencies in the applicants’
version of events. It found, as regards their injuries, that the explanations provided by the
Government were satisfactory, and that the national authorities had arrived at unanimous
conclusions following effective investigations. The Court could not substitute its own factual
assessment for that of the domestic courts, which had found that the applicants had not been the
victims of a use of force other than to the degree strictly necessary.
PROVISION
Article 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Mr P.M. and Mr F.F., two brothers, are French nationals who were born in 1982 and
1978.
At 6 a.m. on 1 January 2007 P.M. and F.F. were arrested in a drunken state in the 11th district of
Paris for acts of vandalism against private property. After being arrested and searched, they were
taken to the local police station and then to the Saint Antoine Hospital. The duty doctor examined
them, and, noting their state of inebriation, refused to admit them to hospital. At 7.45 a.m. they
were placed in a holding room. They were formally notified that they were in police custody at 2.20
p.m. and 3 p.m., respectively. At 2.40 p.m. and 3.20 p.m. the custody officer ordered a medical
examination, and the applicants were taken to the Hôtel-Dieu Hospital and examined by a doctor,
who drew up a medical certificate for each of them, noting their injuries. On that basis P.M. and F.F.
were issued with certificates of temporary unfitness for work for a period of six days. Their police
custody ended at 4.50 p.m. the following day.
On 11 January 2007 P.M. and F.F. filed a complaint with the public prosecutor alleging assault by
persons vested with public authority, serious bodily harm and cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment.
On 24 January 2007 the General Inspectorate of Judicial Services (IGS) was called upon to conduct an
investigation on the instructions of the judicial authority. The IGS interviewed the applicants, the
police officers present in the police station, and also the doctor and nurse who had examined the
applicants at hospital on the day of the events.
On 25 May 2007 the public prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue the case on the grounds that
the offence had not been made out. On 4 March 2008 the applicants were interviewed by the
French National Security Ethics Commission (CNDS), which had been called upon by a Seine-SaintDenis MP on 23 March 2007 following a complaint by the applicants concerning the circumstances of
their arrest.
In its opinion of 18 November 2008 the CNDS concluded that the police officers had used force to
subdue the applicants, adding that it had not been able to endorse the allegations of violence. It
found no breach of security ethics, but emphasised that keeping an arrestee in a prone position for a
prolonged period could, under certain circumstances, lead to cardio-respiratory arrest, and that the
use of that technique should be strictly regulated.
On 17 March 2008 P.M. and F.F. lodged a fresh criminal complaint this time seeking a judicial
investigation, with an application to join the proceedings as civil parties, into deliberate acts of
violence, having caused total unfitness for work for a period equal to or less than eight days, jointly
committed by holders of public office in the context of, or in relation to, their professional duties.
On 15 May 2012 the investigating judge issued a discontinuance decision. The applicants appealed.
The Investigations Division of the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the decision.
On 1 October 2013 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the Court of Appeal’s
judgment. On 27 May 2015 the Court of Cassation dismissed that appeal.
On 13 April 2018 the Paris Criminal Court sentenced P.M. and F.F. to a suspended term of three
months’ imprisonment, for the jointly committed offences of causing criminal damage, insulting a
public officer and resisting arrest. They were also found liable to pay compensation to several police
officers involved in their arrest for having injured and insulted the officers. The applicants and the
public prosecutor’s office appealed against that judgment.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants
complained that they had been injured during their arrest and police custody, and that the domestic
authorities had provided no cogent explanations concerning the origin of their injuries. They also
complained about the judicial decisions given, and considered that the investigation conducted by
the authorities had been ineffective.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 3 – procedural and substantive aspects
Procedural aspect
The Court noted that the applicants had initiated criminal proceedings by filing a complaint with the
public prosecutor. After those proceedings had been discontinued, they had filed a fresh complaint
with an investigating judge, applying for civil-party status. The facts at issue had also led to an
intervention by the CNDS.
The Court firstly observed that the Inspectorate (IGS) had been called upon rapidly by the public
prosecutor. It had conducted an in-depth investigation of an adversarial nature involving interviews
with the applicants, all the police officers who had been in contact with them at the time, and the
doctor and nurse who had assessed them at Saint-Antoine Hospital. It concluded that no evidence
had been found to corroborate the applicants’ account, thus leading the public prosecutor’s office to
close the case. The Court noted the rapidity with which those initial investigations had been
undertaken.
Secondly, the investigating judge in the case had interviewed the applicants, had issued a warrant to
the IGS to re-interview the police officers, had then interviewed the applicants once again, and had
organised various confrontations between the various protagonists in 2011. Following his
investigation the judge had given a duly reasoned decision discontinuing the proceedings. The
Investigations Division had, on appeal, upheld the solution adopted by the investigating judge.
Lastly, the Court of Cassation had dismissed the appeal on points of law, noting that the judicial
investigation had been comprehensive and that there had been insufficient evidence of anyone
having committed the alleged offence.
Thirdly, the CNDS had been called upon to intervene. This independent administrative authority,
whose missions were performed in 2011 by the “Défenseur des droits” (ombudsman), had the
requisite independence to carry out an effective investigation.
The Court found that the investigations into the applicants’ allegations had been carried out speedily
and carefully by the national authorities, which were sufficiently independent. The authorities had
made serious efforts to establish the facts before presenting their conclusions in detailed and duly
reasoned decisions. The authorities had thus fulfilled their obligation to use their best endeavours to
conduct an effective investigation.
The Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its
procedural aspect.
The Court began by noting that the claim that some of the applicants’ allegations were incompatible
with the nature of their injuries had not been disputed by the applicants themselves.
Secondly, it appeared that the witnesses had testified to the police officers’ calmness in contrast to
the aggressiveness of the applicants, who were in a particularly advanced state of drunkenness at
the time of their arrest.
Thirdly, as regards the injury to the second applicant’s ankle, the version presented by the
Government whereby he had hurt himself by kicking the cell door many times with his bare foot,
appeared coherent and had not been seriously disputed. As to the injury to the first applicant’s eye,
his account had varied at the different stages of the domestic proceedings and was marred by much
inaccuracy, inconsistency and contradiction. The Court found, like all the national authorities which
had looked into the matter, that there was no evidence that this injury had been caused by the use
of force by the police, or at least not by a degree of force that was not strictly necessary.
Lastly, the Court noted that all the national authorities had concluded, following comprehensive
investigations and by duly reasoned decisions, that there had been no established failings on the
part of the police officers involved.
In view of the inconsistencies in the applicants’ version of events and the satisfactory explanations
provided by the Government as to the injuries in question, and considering that the national
authorities had arrived at unanimous conclusions following effective investigations, the Court
concluded that it could not substitute its own factual assessment for that of the domestic courts,
which had found that the applicants had not been the victims of a use of force other than to the
degree strictly necessary.
There had not therefore been, in the present case, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under
its substantive aspect.
