the Contrôleur général questions the methods implemented in order to search for the most economical solutions to replace or repair the property provided to detainees when these operations are attributable to them. In addition, the sums claimed from the persons correspond, in case the damaged object is to be replaced, to the price of new property, without taking into account their useful value when they were damaged. While this effectively concerns the principle applied by the court and administrative judges for providing reparations for the physical damage, this situation once again leads to questioning the compensation regime for detainees in case of the loss or deterioration of property falling under the responsibility of the prison administration, which results in the application of a dilapidation rate pursuant to a notice dated 6 February 2008. In this respect, the CGLPL renewed the recommendation formulated in its Opinion dated 10 June 2010 pertaining to the protection of the property of detainees, stating that the compensation for lost or damaged property should be determined using the value of the new property. These difficulties in determining the amount of the deduction also give rise to three questions on the possibility of controlling the prices imposed, the possibility for the detainee concerned to dispute the amount and the verification of the effective repairing of the equipment for which the deduction was made. The method used to deduct the money in question appears, in certain aspects, to be problematic. While certain heads of institutions do not continue the deductions once the person settles a part of the amount due and/or is transferred, the taking into account of the poverty and/or special situation of persons in certain other institutions appears, on the other hand, to still require some refining. It appears that there is no text specifically detailing the calculation of the deductions made in favour of the Treasury. It seems logical that this procedure, being not very well formalised, should not be more restrictive for detainees than similar legal procedures, such as seizures of garnishment or seizures of remunerations. Accordingly, seizures of garnishment must be executed such that the persons concerned retain, on the portion available in their personal account, the monthly maintenance amount of 200 euros or unseizable allocations that they may possibly be beneficiaries of, if this limit is exceeded. It would therefore appear to be useful to precisely frame the possibility of rescheduling and the amount of the debits made, as well as to remind the services concerned that the amounts received by the persons as allocations or pensions are unseizable in nature and cannot be subject to a deduction in favour of the Treasury under any circumstances. 6.2.5 The impossibility of buying electronic cigarettes in the canteens of certain penal institutions The question of the use of electronic cigarettes in detention by detainees has already been detailed in the activity report 2014. As a reminder, the Contrôleur général referred the matter to the director of the prisons administration on 16 December 2013 in order to be informed of her point of view with regard to this issue, the instructions given to heads of institution and, if necessary, to be provided with objective elements establishing grounds for the conclusion that they present risks for the security of institutions. Via the notice dated 11 August 2014, the prisons administration department authorised the use of electronic cigarettes in penal institutions, for both staff and detainees, under the same conditions as the use of tobacco. Yet, the Contrôleur général was informed that electronic cigarettes could not be bought from the canteen of the prison of Meaux-Chauconin. She therefore referred the case to the prison director in order to know his point of view on the reasons for this ban. In his reply, the head of the institution stated that despite the notice dated 11 August 2014 pertaining to the use of electronic cigarettes in penal institutions and services, he did not wish to authorise the sale of this product in the canteen due to “their proven risk of explosion [...]”. 67