January 2026

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

R.M. v. FRANCE ■ Application no. 34994/22

Prisoner held in poor detention conditions (lack of access to natural light, hot water and fresh air; presence of pests; passive smoking; lack of activities), with varying personal space (below 3 m² and between 3 and 4 m²); detention conditions above 3 m² compensated by the recruitment of the applicant as a canteen worker : violation of Article 3 with respect to the applicant’s detention with less than 3 m² of personal space; violation of Article 3 with respect to the applicant’s detention with less than 4 m² of personal space before his recruitment, no violation of Article 3 thereafter.

Prisoner held in an overcrowded cell without fully enclosed toilets; general security measure not compatible with the requirements of protecting prisoners’ privacy: violation of Article 8.

Monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with the NPM: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

Read more

SUMMARY JUDGMENTS

Türkiye | Prisoners denied permission to receive visits from their school‑age children and to make telephone calls at weekends; recording and storage of private correspondence on a national judicial computer system, based on unpublished regulations to which prisoners did not have access (Altıntop and others v. Türki̇ye, nos. 39386/20 and 28 others, 20 January 2026): violation of Article 8.

Türkiye | Seizure of manuscripts by the prison administration without legal basis in the Turkish domestic law (Türk and Others v. Türki̇ye, nos. 4625/21 and 3 others, 22 January 2026): violation of Article 10.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

R.M. v. FRANCE ■ Application no. 34994/22 ■ Fifth Section ■ 15 January 2026

Art 3 ■ Lack of personal space ■ Poor detention conditions (lack of access to natural light, to hot water, to fresh air; pests) ■ Passive smoking ■ Lack of privacy resulting from non-enclosed toilets in overcrowded cells.

Art 3 ■ Poor detention conditions (above 3 m²) compensated by the applicant’s occupation granting additional time outside his cell and entrusting him with responsibilities conducive to his reintegration.

Art 8 ■ Lack of privacy resulting from non-enclosed toilets in overcrowded cells.

Art 8 ■ Monitoring of correspondence with NPM.

Facts ■ The applicant had been detained in Strasbourg prison between 29 April 2016 and 8 April 2017. He complained both about his detention conditions (lack of space and other aspects of his material detention conditions), as well as about the alleged opening of his correspondence with the French National Preventive Mechanism (CGLPL).

Law ■ Articles 3 and 8 (detention conditions)

(a) Intake unit

It was undisputed that, at the intake unit, the applicant had less than 3 m² of personal space during two non-consecutive 3-day periods. The Court first observed that the lack of personal space had not been compensated by a significant number of out-of-cell activities: he could access the yard for around an hour and a half per day, had only infrequent access to a limited number of activities, and he could not practice a sport either within the detention section in which he was detained or in the yard. On these two latter points, the Court based its decision on the reports of the CGLPL.

Second, the Court found that the applicant had been held in inadequate detention conditions. Again, it based its decision on the reports of the CGLPL who “had carried out three visits to Strasbourg prison and published urgent recommendations one year before the applicant was imprisoned” (§ 61), highlighting the poor state of the cells, a lack of access to daylight, the presence of pests and a lack of access to hot water. Furthermore, the applicant had been exposed to passive smoking, further aggravating his detention conditions. Lastly, although the applicant was held in a cell with other prisoners, the toilets were not fully enclosed. In this respect, the Court recalled that “security justifications […] are not compatible with the requirements of protecting the privacy of prisoners when they share overcrowded cells” (§ 63).

The Court concluded that the Government had not rebutted the presumption of violation of Article 3 for the two periods during which the applicant had less than 3 m² of personal space.

In this unit, the applicant was also held in a cell with between 3 and 4 m² of personal space during four non-consecutive periods of two to four days. During these periods, his detention conditions were identical to those during which he had less than 3 m². Consequently, it could not reach a different conclusion and found that there had been a violation of Article 3.

The applicant had also been detained in a cell with 7.9 m² of personal space for a period of four days. The Court considered that this period raised no issue with respect to his personal space.

With regards to the applicant’s detention in the intake unit, the Court considered it unnecessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 8.

(b) Ordinary detention

The applicant was placed in ordinary detention in the prison between 27 May 2016 and 8 April 2017, during which time he had between 3.9 and 7.9 m² personal space. The Court noted that a significant change in the applicant’s detention conditions was that he was employed as a canteen worker between 25 July 2016 and his release on 8 April 2017. Thanks to this activity, he could leave his cell for several hours in the morning and this therefore counterbalanced the negative impacts of imprisonment due to a lack of space or other shortcomings in detention conditions – lack of fresh air, lack of hot water, lack of access to natural light. The Court also underlined that this activity promoted his “socialisation and integration” through “the responsibilities entrusted to him” (§ 76). Consequently, the Court considered that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant’s detention before his recruitment on 25 July 2016 and no violation after this date.

The Court also considered that the fact that the toilets were not fully enclosed raised an issue under Article 8 for the periods during which he had to share his cell with another prisoner (these periods are counted in weeks: from 26 July to 26 October 2016 and from 17 January to 8 April 2017). The Court noted that this issue was identified as a major one by the CGLPL. Against the domestic courts’ and the Government’s appreciation that a partial enclosure was necessary for security reasons, the Court recalled that “a general justification related to internal prison order is not compatible with the requirements of protecting prisoners’ privacy when they share overcrowded cells” (§ 79, referring to the quasi-pilot judgment J.M.B. and Others v. France, no. 9671/15, § 261, 30 January 2020). The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8.

Conclusion ■ Violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant’s detention at the intake unit when he had less than 3 m² and less than 4 m²; violation of Article in respect of the applicant’s detention in ordinary cells from 27 May 2016 and his recruitment as a canteen worker on 25 July 2016, no violation of Article 3 thereafter; violation of Article 8 due to the absence of fully enclosed toilets in overcrowded cell.

Law ■ Article 8 (monitoring of correspondence)

The applicant argued under Article 8 that his correspondence with the CGLPL had been systematically monitored by the prison administration. The Court noted that the applicant did not specify whether this part of his complaint concerns the letters he sent to the CGLPL or the ones he received from this authority. Furthermore, the applicant did not specify before the domestic courts the number of letters that had been allegedly opened by the prison administration, or the dates on which this monitoring took place. On the other hand, the Court observed that the Government provided a copy of the registry showing that two letters sent by the applicant to the CGLPL were indicated as protected correspondence.

Conclusion ■ Inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

Article 41 ■ EUR 7,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.