| Applicant name | TAMAZOUNT AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | Prisoner |
| Number of applicants | 5 |
| Country | France |
| Application no. | 17131/19 19242/19 55810/20 28794/21 28830/21 |
| Date | 04/04/2024 |
| Judges | Georges Ravarani, président, Carlo Ranzoni, Mārtiņš Mits, Lado Chanturia, María Elósegui, Kateřina Šimáčková, juges, Jean-Marie Delarue, juge ad hoc |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | No adequate compensation |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy; private life |
| Keywords | No adequate compensation |
| Facts of the case | Mr Abdelkader, Mr Aïssa and Mr Brahim Tamazount and Mrs Zohra Tamazount claim that their living conditions in the Bias camp exposed them to a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1. They allege in particular the inhuman or degrading nature of the treatment they suffered as a result of their confinement in the camp, the opening of their mail and parcels by the camp administration, the reallocation of social benefits owed to their families to the camp’s expenses and their schooling in a school within the camp, outside the ordinary education system. The Court, which is the master of the legal classification of the facts, considers that the unworthy attitude of the national authorities complained of by the applicants with regard to their educational needs is encompassed by the questions raised under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. It will therefore examine the complaints raised by the applicants in their applications solely under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 |
| Analysis | The Court notes that those reports highlighted the precariousness of the living conditions, in particular due to the small size and poor insulation of the accommodation, the overcrowding, the limited access to showers, which were paid for, the limited contact with the outside world and the introduction of curfews. They also describe the existence of checks on mail and parcels by the administration, the reallocation of social benefits due to the Harkis to a special account of the North African Social Service which was used to finance the camps and the schooling of children in a school within the camp, outside the ordinary education system. Each of the applicants was awarded by the domestic courts a total sum of EUR 15,000 for periods of between seven and fourteen years in the camps, all complaints and all damages combined, without the four-year limitation period being applied to them. The Court is aware of the difficulty of quantifying the harm suffered by the applicants and of the limits of the comparison with the undignified conditions of detention, in the light of the specificity of the historical context. It considers that the amounts awarded by the domestic courts in the present case do not constitute adequate and sufficient compensation to redress the violations found. First, and as regards the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the amounts awarded to the applicants are modest in comparison with what the Court generally awards in cases concerning undignified conditions of detention. |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, 3 and P1-1. No violation 6 |
| Damage awarded | that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage arising from his stay in the Bias camp : 5,694 EUR (five thousand six hundred and ninety-four euros) for Mr Abdelkader Tamazount ; 4,250 EUR (four thousand two hundred and fifty euros) for Mr Aïssa Tamazount ; 5,858 EUR (five thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight euros) for Ms Zohra Tamazount ; 3,716 EUR (three thousand seven hundred and sixteen euros) for Mr Brahim Tamazount ; b) that from the expiry of the said period and until payment, this amount will be increased by simple interest at a rate equal to that of the marginal lending facility of the European Central Bank applicable during this period, increased by three percentage points ; |
| Documents | Judgment |