0
0
In Sekour v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section) delivered its judgment on 12 March 2026, examining whether the prolonged administrative placement of a terrorism detainee in solitary confinement violated Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
The applicant, an Algerian national born in 1995, arrived in France at the age of 13 under family reunification provisions. On 7 November 2015, following two attempts to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State, he was placed in pre-trial detention on charges of participating in a criminal conspiracy to prepare an act of terrorism. He was subsequently placed in administrative solitary confinement on multiple occasions between September 2016 and March 2023 across several prison establishments. He was convicted on 17 January 2020 and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, with a five-year, four-month security period. He was expelled to Algeria on 17 March 2023 upon completion of his sentence.
KEY ARTICLES EXAMINED
Article 35 § 1 — Exhaustion of domestic remedies: the Court assessed whether the référé-suspension and référé-liberté (interim injunction) procedures constituted effective preventive remedies for challenging solitary confinement extensions.
Article 3 (substantive) — Inhuman or degrading treatment: the Court examined the prolonged solitary confinement of a detainee held for terrorism-related offences.
Article 13 (in conjunction with Article 3) — Effective remedies for contesting solitary confinement decisions.
THE COURT’S APPROACH: REDEFINING THE SCOPE OF THE DISPUTE
In a significant methodological development, the Chamber modified its prior approach to determining which periods of solitary confinement fall within the scope of a complaint.
The Court noted: “The remedies introduced in French law from 2003 onwards had become sufficiently accessible and effective at the date of the relevant facts, namely between 2016 and 2022. This leads the Court to modify its approach regarding the periods to be taken into consideration in determining the scope of the dispute”.
The Court accordingly limited its substantive review under Article 3 strictly to the two confinement decisions which the applicant had properly exhausted through domestic proceedings — those of 18 March 2019 and 5 May 2020. The remaining approximately eighteen decisions were declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Crucially, however, the Court clarified that periods falling outside the scope of the dispute would still be taken into account when assessing whether the minimum threshold of severity under Article 3 had been reached: “The Court, conscious of the concrete effect of the cumulative duration of solitary confinement on the applicant’s personal situation, specifies that the periods which do not strictly fall within the scope of the dispute before it will be taken into consideration in its examination of the factors to be analysed in order to determine whether the requisite threshold of severity has been reached”.
ON EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES (ARTICLE 35 § 1)
The Court confirmed that both the référé-suspension (combined with an action for annulment) and the référé-liberté constitute, in principle, effective preventive remedies for challenging solitary confinement, observing: “The Court deduces from the foregoing that the action for annulment on grounds of excess of power and the application for suspension of enforcement, taken together, constituted in principle an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention at the date of the relevant facts, inasmuch as they were capable of enabling the administrative court, in good time, to examine the facts of the case in light of Article 3”.
With respect to the référé-liberté specifically, the Court emphasised the speed of judicial decision-making as critical to its effectiveness: “The fact that the interlocutory judge and the Conseil d’État hearing the appeal are required to rule within forty-eight hours meets in principle the requirement of expedition, and the Court concludes that the référé-liberté is in principle an effective remedy in respect of a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning a measure of custodial solitary confinement”.
ON THE MERITS: ARTICLE 3 (INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT)
Turning to the substantive assessment, the Court acknowledged the particular challenges posed by the detention of individuals prosecuted or convicted for terrorism-related offences: “The Court is aware of the difficulties that the detention of persons prosecuted or convicted for terrorism-related offences poses for the authorities. By reason of the very nature of such offences, these persons may represent a particular risk to the security of prisons and prison staff, as well as to other detainees, a risk which the authorities must manage”.
The Court found that the two impugned decisions of 18 March 2019 and 5 May 2020 were grounded in a particularised assessment of the applicant’s conduct and situation, and were therefore not arbitrary. It noted the extensive procedural safeguards surrounding solitary confinement decisions in French law — including adversarial proceedings, access to legal counsel, mandatory medical opinions, and judicial review — and concluded: “The Court considers that all these safeguards, which the applicant does not contest having benefited from, are such as to prevent a prolonged period of solitary confinement from producing effects contrary to Article 3”.
Critically, the Court noted that the applicant had made no specific complaint about his material conditions of detention and had not alleged complete sensory or social isolation: “The Court notes that the applicant, who confines himself to unsubstantiated general allegations, provides no details about the specific modalities of the solitary confinement to which he was subjected, does not complain about the material conditions thereof, and does not claim to have suffered complete sensory isolation or total social isolation”.
The Court unanimously found no violation of Article 3.
ON ARTICLE 13 (RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY)
Having confirmed that effective domestic remedies existed in French law — and were available and accessible in theory and in practice — the Court found no violation of Article 13, reiterating that the effectiveness of a remedy does not depend on a guaranteed favourable outcome for the applicant: “The Court does not see any reason to reach a different conclusion under Article 13 of the Convention, given the close affinities between these two provisions and the fact that the effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant”.
SIGNIFICANCE FOR SOLITARY CONFINEMENT JURISPRUDENCE
The Sekour judgment introduces an important procedural principle: the Court will, in cases where effective domestic remedies have been available and accessible for a substantial period, confine its substantive Article 3 review to confinement decisions properly exhausted through domestic channels, whilst still considering non-litigated periods as contextual factors relevant to the threshold of severity. This approach reinforces the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the Preamble to the Convention, encouraging detainees to utilise available domestic procedures before invoking the Convention system.
The judgment also confirms and elaborates the dual-track system of effective preventive remedies in French administrative law for challenging solitary confinement: the référé-suspension (linked to an excess-of-power annulment action) and the référé-liberté. Both procedures are now firmly recognised as Convention-compliant preventive remedies, capable of providing timely and substantive judicial control of administrative confinement decisions.
The case was decided by a Chamber composed of Judges Šimáčková (President), Elósegui, Guyomar, Serghides, Felici, Gnatovskyy, and Biancheri, with Registrar Soloveytchik. The judgment will become final under the conditions set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.
