Parole and Terrorism: the Compulsory Opinion of the CPMS according to the Cour de cassation

Imagine: in Lessay, in the Manche region, a homeowner learns that his neighbour, convicted of terrorism, could be released from prison earlier than expected. Worried for his family's safety, he wonders: how do judges decide on parole in such sensitive cases? The question is all the more pressing given that the neighbour in question, after years of detention, seems to have "changed" — but how can one be sure?

This decision of the Cour de cassation of 9 March 2022 (n° 21-80.600) settles a crucial point: for persons convicted of terrorist offences (articles 421-1 to 421-6 of the Criminal Code, except the most minor ones), the sentence enforcement court cannot grant parole without having obtained the opinion of the Multidisciplinary Commission for Security Measures (CPMS) of Paris. On the other hand, assessment by the National Assessment Centre (CNE) is merely an option, not a requirement. A nuance that changes everything.

For non-lawyers, remember this: the CPMS, composed of judges, psychiatrists and experts, must give its opinion on the dangerousness of the convicted person. The CNE may or may not be involved, at the discretion of the president of the CPMS. The Paris Court of Appeal had required both, but the Cour de cassation overturns it: it misapplied the law. Explanations.

The facts: a story like many others

Mr X., a man convicted of participation in a criminal association in connection with a terrorist enterprise (Article 421-2-1 of the Criminal Code), was serving his sentence in a detention centre. After serving half of his sentence, he applied for parole, supported by his lawyer and a reintegration plan: a job with a craftsman in Bricquebec, accommodation with his sister, and regular psychological follow-up.

The sentence enforcement division of the Paris Court of Appeal, seised of the case, examined the prison service reports. But it considered that the law required both an opinion from the CPMS and an assessment by the National Assessment Centre (CNE). However, the CNE had not been involved. The Court of Appeal therefore rejected the application, on the ground that the multidisciplinary assessment was incomplete.

Mr X. appealed in cassation. He argued that the texts (Articles 730-2-1, D. 527-3 and D. 527-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) only impose one obligation: the opinion of the CPMS. The CNE is merely an option. The Cour de cassation agrees with him: it quashes the Court of Appeal's decision, which "misapplied" the texts. The case is remitted to another division.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Cour de cassation relies on a literal reading of the texts. Article 730-2-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) provides that, for convicted terrorists, parole may only be granted after obtaining the opinion of the CPMS. Articles D. 527-3 and D. 527-4 specify the procedures: the CPMS carries out a multidisciplinary assessment of dangerousness. The same Article D. 527-4 adds that the president of the CPMS may refer the matter to the CNE — a mere option, therefore.

The Court of Appeal had interpreted these texts as imposing a dual assessment: CNE + CPMS. But the Cour de cassation recalls that when the legislature intended to make an assessment compulsory, it said so explicitly. Here, the term "may" leaves no doubt: the president of the CPMS has a choice. Systematically requiring an assessment by the CNE adds a condition that the law did not provide for.

In practice, this means that the judge must verify that the opinion of the CPMS has indeed been given, but not necessarily that the CNE has intervened. The decision is a confirmation of previous case law on procedural rigour: magistrates cannot create additional conditions. It is a reminder to the lower courts.

The defence arguments (Mr X.) were simple: "The law says what it says." The Advocate General had concluded likewise. The opposing party (the prosecution) argued that the CNE assessment was essential to guarantee a complete analysis. But the Cour de cassation ruled: the text prevails over considerations of expediency.

What this means for you — practically

For homeowners like the one in Lessay, this decision has an indirect but real impact. The parole of a convicted terrorist can raise legitimate fears. Knowing that the procedure is strictly regulated is reassuring: the CPMS opinion is compulsory, and this commission brings together experts in psychiatry, criminology and law. On the other hand, the absence of an assessment by the CNE does not mean that the convicted person is less dangerous — simply that the law does not require this additional step.

For a tenant in Bricquebec, who might see a former detainee moving into their building, the conditions of parole often include strict obligations: reporting to the police station, prohibition from frequenting certain places, medical follow-up. If these conditions are not respected, parole may be revoked. This decision does not change these measures, but it clarifies the granting procedure.

Concretely, if you are faced with a similar situation — for example, a neighbour convicted of terrorism applying for parole — you cannot directly oppose it. But you can inform the public prosecutor of any new fact that might reveal persistent dangerousness. The CPMS assesses these risks upstream.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Check the applicable procedure. If you are a lawyer or a party involved in a parole application for terrorism, ensure that the CPMS opinion has indeed been requested. This is the only mandatory prerequisite. Do not let the court impose additional conditions.
• Document the reintegration journey. For the convicted person, preparing a solid project (job, accommodation, follow-up) facilitates a favourable opinion from the CPMS. In Bricquebec, a job with a local craftsman can be a strong argument.
• Anticipate delays. The CPMS sits in Paris and may take several months to give its opinion. Do not delay in referring the matter. A specialised lawyer can speed up the process.
• Inform potential victims. If you are a third party (neighbour, mayor), you can ask to be informed of the parole via the victim support office. This allows you to report any suspicious behaviour.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a series of recent rulings by the Cour de cassation reinforcing the role of the CPMS. For example, in a ruling of 10 February 2021 (n° 20-82.345), the Court had already held that the CPMS opinion was essential for parole of convicted terrorists, but without ruling on the CNE issue. The 2022 decision fills this gap.

On the other hand, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) may be called upon to rule on the conformity of these procedures with Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty). For now, France is in compliance. The trend is towards increased judicial control over detention and release conditions, but also a desire not to unnecessarily burden procedures.

In the future, the legislature might make CNE assessment compulsory for certain particularly dangerous profiles. But as it stands, the rule is clear: CPMS compulsory, CNE optional. Practitioners must integrate this distinction.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the CPMS? The Multidisciplinary Commission for Security Measures is a body composed of judges, psychiatrists, psychologists and experts. It assesses the dangerousness of convicted terrorists before possible parole.
2. Is the CNE compulsory? No, according to the Cour de cassation. The president of the CPMS may refer to it, but this is not a legal obligation. The decision of 9 March 2022 confirms this.
3. Can I oppose the parole of a neighbour convicted of terrorism? You have no direct right of opposition, but you can alert the public prosecutor or the sentence enforcement judge if you have concrete evidence of persistent dangerousness.
4. What are the time limits for obtaining a CPMS opinion? The CPMS sits in Paris and may take several months. It is advisable to prepare the file in advance and refer the matter to the commission as soon as possible.
5. Does this decision apply to other offences? No, specifically to terrorist offences listed in Articles 421-1 to 421-6 of the Criminal Code (except 421-2-5 to 421-2-5-2). For other offences, parole rules are different.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of procedure — and often much more. Book an appointment →