Final Resolution CM /ResDH(2007)50

Human Rights

Application No. 27019/95

Slimane-Kaïd against France

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007, at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 of the Convention for the P rotection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (99) 355, adopted on 9 June 1999 in the case of Slimane-Kaïd against France, in which the Committee of Ministers decided to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights and that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the opening by the prison services of letters sent by his lawyers to the applicant and that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the opening by the prison services of a letter sent by the Commission to the applicant;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the P resident of the Commission dated 17 June 1999;

Whereas at the 688th meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agre e ing with the Commission ' s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 3 December 1999 , in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 1 French Franc in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 25 000 French Francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 25 001 French Francs , and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicant;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 9 June 1999 and 3 December 1999 having regard to France ' s obligation under former Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state accordingly gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee ' s decisions taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as those found in this case (this information a p pears in the appendix to this resol u tion);

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 7 January 2000, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the total sum of 25 001 French Francs as just satisfaction,

within one month of the time-limit set, and thus no default interest was due in accordance with the above ‑ mentioned decision of the Committee of Ministers concerning the modalities of default interest pa y ment,]

Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the government of France and considering the decision taken at the 764th meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies (15 October 2001), that it has exercised its fun c tions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case and decides to close its examination.

Appendix to Resolution CM /ResDH(2007)50

Information provided by the government of France during the examination of the Slimane-Kaïd case by the Committee of Ministers

This case concerns first of all a violation of the applicant ' s right to respect for his correspondence in view of the fact that the prison services opened mail sent to the applicant by his lawyers.

Underlying the violation was former Article D. 419 of the Code of Criminal P rocedure which governed the monitoring of prisoners ' correspondence, making a distinction between lawyers who assisted the accused in the proceedings for which they had been detained and others: correspondence between the accused and lawyers who had assisted them in the proceedings for which they had been detained was subject to no monitoring; correspondence between the accused and lawyers who had not assisted them in the proceedings was subject to monitoring and the prosecution service could authorise this monitoring to be lifted.

Decree No. 2000-1213 of 13 December 2000 amending the Code of Criminal P rocedure relating to the application of sentences amended Article D. 419 and removed this distinction. Article D. 419 of the Code of Criminal P rocedure is now worded as follows: “lawyers may communicate, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Article D. 69, with detainees and convicted persons.”

With regard to the second violation found in this case (violation of Article 8 in view of the fact that the prison services opened a letter sent to the applicant by the Commission), the French government points out that measures have been taken to avoid any further similar violations. These include a memorandum sent to prison governors specifying that detainees ' correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights, whatever the organ ( i.e ., the president, a member or the Secretariat) should remain unopened ( cf. Resolution DH(97)482 in the A. B. case).

Article A40 of the Code of Criminal P rocedure (Order of 16 September 2005), which lists the administrative and judicial authorities with which detainees may correspond without their letters being opened makes explicit mention of the president of the European Court of Human Rights, the registry of the European Court of Human Rights and all members of the European Court of Human Rights;

Lastly, the French government states that the Commission ' s report and the Committee of Ministers ' decision have been forwarded to the authorities directly concerned;

The French government is of the opinion that all these measures will prevent any further violations similar to those found in this case and that France has therefore complied with its obligations under former Article 32 of the Convention.