9.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Paris. 10.  She arrived in France on 26 January 1994, aged 15 years and 7 months, with Mrs D., a French national of Togolese origin. She had a passport and a tourist visa. 11.  It had been agreed that she would work at Mrs D.'s home until the cost of her air ticket had been reimbursed and that Mrs D. would attend to her immigration status and find her a place at school. In reality, the applicant became an unpaid housemaid for Mr and Mrs D. and her passport was taken from her. 12.  In the second half of 1994, Mrs D. “lent” the applicant to Mr and Mrs B., who had two small children, so that she could assist the pregnant Mrs B. with household work. Mrs B. also had another daughter from a first marriage who stayed with her during the holidays and at weekends. The applicant lived at Mr and Mrs B.'s home, her father having given his consent. 13.  On her return from the maternity hospital, Mrs B. told the applicant that she had decided to keep her. 14.  The applicant subsequently became a general housemaid for Mr and Mrs B. She worked seven days a week, without a day off, and was occasionally and exceptionally authorised to go out on Sundays to attend mass. Her working day began at 7.30 a.m., when she had to get up and prepare breakfast, dress the children, take them to nursery school or their recreational activities, look after the baby, do the housework and wash and iron clothes.
In the evening she prepared dinner, looked after the older children, did the washing up and went to bed at about 10.30 p.m. In addition, she had to clean a studio flat, in the same building, which Mr B. had made into an office.
The applicant slept on a mattress on the floor in the baby's room; she had to look after him if he woke up. 15.  She was never paid, except by Mrs B.'s mother, who gave her one or two 500 French franc (FRF) notes. 16.  In December 1995 the applicant was able to escape with the help of a Haitian national who took her in for five or six months. She looked after the latter's two children, was given appropriate accommodation and food, and received FRF 2,500 per month. 17.  Subsequently, in obedience to her paternal uncle, who had been in contact with Mr and Mrs B., she returned to the couple, who had undertaken to put her immigration status in order. However, the situation remained unchanged: the applicant continued to carry out household tasks and look after the couple's children. She slept on a mattress on the floor of the children's bedroom, then on a folding bed, and wore second-hand clothes. Her immigration status had still not been regularised, she was not paid and did not attend school. 18.  On an unspecified date, the applicant managed to recover her passport, which she entrusted to an acquaintance of Mr and Mrs B. She also confided in a neighbour, who alerted the Committee against Modern Slavery (Comité contre l'esclavage moderne), which in turn filed a complaint with the prosecutor's office concerning the applicant's case. 19.  On 28 July 1998 the police raided Mr and Mrs B.'s home. 20.  The couple were prosecuted on charges of having obtained from July 1995 to July 1998 the performance of services without payment or in exchange for payment that was manifestly disproportionate to the work carried out, by taking advantage of that person's vulnerability or state of dependence; with having subjected an individual to working and living conditions that were incompatible with human dignity by taking advantage of her vulnerability or state of dependence; and with having employed and maintained in their service an alien who was not in possession of a work permit. 21.  On 10 June 1999 the Paris tribunal de grande instance delivered its judgment. 22.  It found that the applicant's vulnerability and dependence in her relationship with Mr and Mrs B. was proved by the fact that she was unlawfully resident in France, was aware of that fact and feared arrest, that Mr and Mrs B. nurtured that fear while promising to secure her leave to remain – a claim that was confirmed by her uncle and her father – and by the fact that she had no resources, no friends and almost no family to help her. 23.  As to the failure to provide any or adequate remuneration, the court noted that it had been established that the young woman had remained with Mr and Mrs B. for several years, was not a member of their family, could not be regarded as a foreign au pair who had to be registered and given free time in order to improve her language skills, was kept busy all day with housework, did not go to school and was not training for a profession and that, had she not been in their service, Mr and Mrs B. would have been obliged to employ another person, given the amount of work created by the presence of four children in the home.
It therefore concluded that the offence laid down in Article 225-13 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 46 below) was made out. 24.  The court also found it established that Mr and Mrs B. were employing an alien who was not in possession of a work permit. 25.  The court noted that the parties had submitted differing accounts concerning the allegations that the working and living conditions were incompatible with human dignity.
It found that the applicant clearly worked long hours and did not enjoy a day off as such, although she was given permission to attend mass. It noted that a person who remained at home with four children necessarily began his or her work early in the morning and finished late at night, but had moments of respite during the day; however, the scale of Mrs B.'s involvement in this work had not been established. 26.  The court concluded that, while it seemed established that employment regulations had not been observed in respect of working hours and rest time, this did not suffice to consider that the working conditions were incompatible with human dignity, which would have implied, for example, a furious pace, frequent insults and harassment, the need for particular physical strength that was disproportionate to the employee's constitution and having to work in unhealthy premises, which had not been the case in this instance. 27.  As to the applicant's accommodation, the court noted that Mr and Mrs B., who were well-off, had not seen fit to set aside an area for the applicant's personal use and that, although this situation was regrettable and indicated their lack of consideration for her, her living conditions could not be held to infringe human dignity, given that a number of people, especially in the Paris region, did not have their own rooms. Accommodation which infringed human dignity implied an unhygienic, unheated room, with no possibility of looking after one's basic hygiene, or premises which were so far below the applicable norms that occupation would be dangerous. 28.  Accordingly, the court found that the offence laid down in Article 225‑14 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 46 below) had not been made out.
Nonetheless, the judges concluded that the offences of which Mr and Mrs B. were convicted were incontestably serious and were to be severely punished, particularly as the couple considered that they had treated the applicant quite properly.
Accordingly, they sentenced them to twelve months' imprisonment each, of which seven months were suspended, imposed a fine of FRF 100,000 and ordered them to pay, jointly and severally, FRF 100,000 to the applicant in damages. In addition, Mr and Mrs B. forfeited their civic, civil and family rights for three years. 29.  Mr and Mrs B. appealed against this decision. 30.  On 20 April 2000 the Paris Court of Appeal gave an interlocutory judgment ordering further investigations. 31.  On 19 October 2000 it delivered its judgment on the merits. 32.  The Court of Appeal found that the additional investigation had made it possible to confirm that the applicant had arrived in France aged 15 years and 7 months, in possession of a passport and a three-month tourist visa. During the period that she lived with Mrs D., from January to October 1994, she had been employed by the latter, firstly, to do housework, cook and look after her child, and, secondly, in the latter's clothing business, where she also did the cleaning and returned to the rails clothes that customers had tried on, without remuneration. 33.  Around October 1994 the applicant had spent a few days at Mr and Mrs B.'s home, shortly before Mrs B. gave birth to her fourth child. She travelled by underground to Mr and Mrs B.'s home every day and returned to Mrs D.'s house in the evening to sleep. 34.  In July/August 1994 she was “lent” to Mr and Mrs B., and stayed in their home until December 1995, when she left for Mrs G.'s home, where she was remunerated for her work and given accommodation. She had returned to Mr and Mrs B. in May/June 1996 on her uncle's advice. 35.  The Court of Appeal noted that it had been established that the applicant was an illegal immigrant and had not received any real remuneration.
Further, it noted that it appeared that the applicant was proficient in French, which she had learnt in her own country.
In addition, she had learnt to find her way around Paris in order, initially, to go from Mrs D.'s home to the latter's business premises, and later to travel to Maisons-Alfort, where Mrs G. lived, and finally to return to Mr and Mrs B.'s home. 36.  She had a degree of independence, since she took the children to the locations where their educational and sports activities were held, and subsequently collected them. She was also able to attend a Catholic service in a church near Mr and Mrs B.'s home. In addition, she left the house to go shopping, since it was on one of those occasions that she had met Mrs G. and agreed with her to go to the latter's home. 37.  The Court of Appeal further noted that the applicant had had an opportunity to contact her uncle by telephone outside Mr and Mrs B.'s home and to pay for calls from a telephone box. She had met her father and her uncle and had never complained about her situation. 38.  Furthermore, Mrs B.'s mother confirmed that the applicant spoke good French and that she was in the habit of giving her small sums of money for family celebrations. She had frequently had the applicant and her grandchildren to stay in her country house and had never heard her complain of ill-treatment or contempt, although she had been free to express her views. 39.  The applicant's uncle stated that she was free, among other things, to leave the house and call him from a telephone box, that she was appropriately dressed, in good health and always had some money, which could not have come from anyone but Mr and Mrs B. He had offered to give her money, but she had never asked for any. He added that he had raised this question with Mrs B., who had told him that a certain amount was set aside every month in order to build up a nest egg for the applicant, which would be given to her when she left, and that the girl was aware of this arrangement.
He stated that, on the basis of what he had been able to observe and conclude from his conversations with the applicant and with Mrs B., the girl had not been kept as a slave in the home in which she lived. 40.  The Court of Appeal ruled that the additional investigations and hearings had shown that, while it did appear that the applicant had not been paid or that the payment was clearly disproportionate to the amount of work carried out (although the defendants' intention to create a nest egg that would be handed over to her on departure had not been seriously disputed), in contrast, the existence of working or living conditions that were incompatible with human dignity had not been established.
It also considered that it had not been established that the applicant was in a state of vulnerability or dependence since, by taking advantage of her ability to come and go at will, contacting her family at any time, leaving Mr and Mrs B.'s home for a considerable period and returning without coercion, the girl had, in spite of her youth, shown an undeniable form of independence, and vulnerability could not be established merely on the basis that she was an alien.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal acquitted the defendants on all the charges against them. 41.  The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment. No appeal was lodged by the Principal Public Prosecutor's Office. 42.  In a letter of 27 October 2000 to the Chair of the Committee against Modern Slavery, the public prosecutor attached to the Paris Court of Appeal wrote:
“In your letter of 23 October 2000 you asked me to inform you whether the public prosecution office under my direction has lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment delivered on 19 October 2000 by the Twelfth Division of the court which heard the appeal in the criminal proceedings against Mr and Mrs B.
The Court of Appeal's decision to acquit the defendants of the two offences of insufficiently remunerating a person in a vulnerable position and subjecting a person in a vulnerable or dependent state to demeaning working conditions was based on an assessment of elements of pure fact.
Since the Court of Cassation considers that such assessments come within the unfettered discretion of the trial courts, an appeal on points of law could not be effectively argued.
That is why I have not made use of that remedy.” 43.  The Court of Cassation delivered its judgment on 11 December 2001. It ruled as follows:
“All judgments must contain reasons justifying the decision reached; giving inadequate or contradictory reasons is tantamount to giving no reasons.
After an investigation into the situation of [the applicant], a young Togolese national whom they had employed and lodged in their home since she was 16, V. and A.B. were directly summoned before the criminal court for, firstly, taking advantage of a person's vulnerability or dependent state to obtain services without payment or any adequate payment, contrary to Article 225-13 of the Criminal Code and, secondly, for subjecting that person to working or living conditions incompatible with human dignity, contrary to Article 225-14 of the same Code.
In acquitting the defendants of the two above-mentioned offences and dismissing the civil party's claims in connection therewith, the appeal court, having noted that [the applicant] was a foreign minor, without a residence or work permit and without resources, nonetheless stated that her state of vulnerability and dependence, a common constituent element of the alleged offences, had not been established, given that the girl enjoyed a certain freedom of movement and that vulnerability could not be established merely on the basis that she was an alien.
Furthermore, in finding that the offence defined in Article 225-13 of the Criminal Code had not been made out, the court added that 'it does appear that the applicant has not been paid or that the payment was clearly disproportionate to the amount of work carried out (although the defendants' intention to build up a nest egg that would be handed over to her on departure has not been seriously disputed)'.
Finally, in acquitting the defendants of the offence set out in Article 225-14 of the Criminal Code, the courts found that subjection to working or living conditions incompatible with human dignity 'had not been established'.
However, in ruling in this way, with reasons that were inadequate and ineffective with regard to the victim's state of vulnerability and dependence and contradictory with regard to her remuneration, and without specifying the factual elements which established that her working conditions were compatible with human dignity, the Court of Appeal failed to draw from its findings the legal conclusions that were required in the light of Article 225-13 of the Criminal Code and did not justify its decision in the light of Article 225-14 of that Code.
The judgment must therefore be quashed.
For these reasons,
[The Court of Cassation] quashes the above-mentioned judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal dated 19 October 2000 but only in respect of the provisions dismissing the civil party's requests for compensation in respect of the offences provided for in Articles 225-13 and 225-14 of the Criminal Code, all other provisions being expressly maintained, and instructs that the case be remitted, in accordance with the law, for a rehearing of the matters in respect of which this appeal has been allowed. ...” 44.  The Versailles Court of Appeal, to which the case was subsequently referred, delivered its judgment on 15 May 2003. It ruled, inter alia, as follows:
“As was correctly noted at first instance, the evidence shows that [the applicant], an alien who arrived in France at the age of 16, worked for several years for Mr and Mrs B., carrying out household tasks and looking after their three, and subsequently four, children for seven days a week, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., without receiving any remuneration whatsoever; contrary to the defendants' claims, she was not considered a family friend, since she was obliged to follow Mrs B.'s instructions regarding her working hours and the work to be done, and was not free to come and go as she pleased.
In addition, there is no evidence to show that a nest egg has been built up for her, since the list of payments allegedly made by the defendants is in Mrs B.'s name.
It was only at the hearing before the tribunal de grande instance that the defendants gave the victim the sum of 50,000 francs.
Finally, far from showing that [the applicant] was happy to return to Mr and Mrs B.'s home, the conditions in which she did so after an absence of several months are, on the contrary, indicative of the pressure she had been subjected to by her family and of her state of resignation and emotional disarray.
With regard to the victim's state of dependence and vulnerability during the period under examination, it should be noted that this young girl was a minor, of Togolese nationality, an illegal immigrant in France, without a passport, more often than not without money, and that she was able to move about only under Mrs B.'s supervision for the purposes of the children's educational and sports activities.
Accordingly, it was on appropriate grounds, to which this court subscribes, that the court at first instance found that the constituent elements of the offence punishable under Article 225-13 of the Criminal Code were established in respect of the defendants.
With regard to the offence of subjecting a person in a vulnerable or dependent position to working or living conditions that are incompatible with human dignity:
As the court of first instance correctly noted, carrying out household tasks and looking after children throughout the day could not by themselves constitute working conditions incompatible with human dignity, this being the lot of many mothers; in addition, the civil party's allegations of humiliating treatment or harassment have not been proved.
Equally, the fact that [the applicant] did not have an area reserved for her personal use does not mean that the accommodation was incompatible with human dignity, given that Mr and Mrs B's own children shared the same room, which was in no way unhygienic.
Accordingly, the constituent elements of this second offence have not been established in respect of Mr and Mrs B.
Independently of the sums due to [the applicant] in wages and the payment of 50,000 francs in a belated gesture of partial remuneration, Mr B., whose intellectual and cultural level was such as to enable him to grasp fully the unlawfulness of his conduct, but who allowed the situation to continue, probably through cowardice, has, together with Mrs B., caused [the applicant] considerable psychological trauma, for which should be awarded 15,245 euros in compensation, as assessed by the court of first instance.” 45.  On 3 October 2003 the Paris industrial tribunal delivered judgment following an application submitted by the applicant. It awarded her 31,238 euros (EUR) in respect of arrears of salary, EUR 1,647 in respect of the notice period and EUR 164 in respect of holiday leave.