The detention of a detainee in the isolation cell for 7 days as a disciplinary measure does not consist degrading treatment
JUDGMENT
Mazziotti v. France 11.10.2018 (no. 65089/13)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the imposition of a disciplinary measure on a prisoner who was found in
possession of a mobile phone.
The Court acknowledged the validity of the disciplinary reasons for the sanction and its necessity on
security grounds. It observed that the length of the applicant’s placement in the disciplinary cell had
been relatively short and that the last two days of the penalty had been replaced by work to benefit
the community; this demonstrated that the authorities had kept the circumstances and the
prisoner’s situation under review. The applicant had been seen by a psychiatrist and a nurse both
before being placed in the disciplinary wing and on the day on which the penalty was enforced, thus
enabling the authorities to verify that the measure was compatible with his state of health. He had
also been seen regularly by a doctor or a psychologist during the period concerned
PROVISIONS
Article 3
Article 13
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Michael Mazziotti, is a French national who was born in 1987 and is in prison in
Marseilles.
Mr Mazziotti was remanded in custody in May 2010. He had already been convicted four times and
was committed for trial in the Assize Court. In a judgment of 15 October 2013 the Bouches-du-Rhône Assize Court sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery carried out as part of a gang, aggravated assault and criminal conspiracy.
A short time previously, on 12 October 2012, while he was being held in Nice Prison, Mr Mazziotti
was found in possession of a mobile phone and a telephone chip. The prison disciplinary board
ordered his confinement in a disciplinary cell for seven days, from 22 to 28 November 2012.
On 22 November Mr Mazziotti applied to the urgent-applications judge for a stay of execution of
that decision. The application was rejected. On 27 November 2012 Mr Mazziotti appealed against
that decision to the Conseil d’État. In an order of 14 June 2013 the Conseil d’État found that it was
unnecessary to rule on the appeal, as the disciplinary penalty had already been enforced
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Articles 3 and 13
The Court observed at the outset that Mr Mazziotti had simply stated in very general terms that the
measure imposed had not been necessary in view of the aim pursued. The Court could discern
nothing in the case file that would cast doubt on the disciplinary reasons for the sanction or its
necessity on security grounds. The Court also noted that the length of the applicant’s placement in
the disciplinary cell had been relatively short and, moreover, had been reduced by the prison
authorities, who had granted Mr Mazziotti’s request to replace the last two days of the penalty with
work to benefit the community.
Likewise, there was no evidence in the file to suggest that the decision to transfer Mr Mazziotti to a
disciplinary cell had been liable to jeopardise his physical or mental health. On the contrary, the
Court noted that Mr Mazziotti had been under constant medical supervision and had been seen by a
psychiatrist and a nurse both before being placed in the disciplinary wing and on the day on which
the penalty was enforced. He had been seen regularly by a doctor or psychologist during the period
in question.
Lastly, the Court observed that Mr Mazziotti had never complained about the physical conditions of
detention in the disciplinary wing, either to the domestic authorities or to the Court.
Consequently, the Court saw no appearance of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The
complaint under Article 13 therefore also had to be rejected(echrcaselaw.com editing).
