Key facts of the case:
The plaintiff appealed against a Court verdict enforcing a prison sentence that denied him the chance of parole after having served 2/3 of his prison sentence. He appealed for the court decision to be rejected on the grounds that the judgement was insufficiently substantiated. The Public Prosecutor responded by affirming that “should any error have occurred based on a lack substantiating the decision under appeal, it would have been a mere irregularity, as the decision had already been settled beyond what it had the duty of doing. The reasons of the decision calling for special prevention lay in the plaintiff’s poor self-critical awareness, the fact that he had committed several breaches in discipline, and that he had not given any concrete ideas about working in a free environment, all of which acted against granting him any parole”.
... the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union sets forth in a binding way for member States in its Article 49, no. 3, that “The severity of penalties must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence”.