Unlike the procedure of compulsory prior appeal to a higher administrative authority, the possibility open to prisoners of requesting immediate suspension of sanctions by jurisdictional means is never mentioned by the chairs of disciplinary committees. In fact, other means of jurisdictional remedy, which are intended for urgent situations, are very widely ignored. On the one hand, emergency appeals to an urgent applications judge for the suspension of disciplinary sanctions (référé-suspension)217 can be exercised without waiting for a decision from the interregional director by simply proving that a compulsor y prior appeal to a higher administrative authority has been lodged. On the other hand, emergency appeals to an urgent applications judge for release from disciplinary sanctions (référé-liberté) – whose admissibility is not dependent upon a principal appeal against the substance of a ruling – may be lodged in case of violation of a fundamental liberty 218. It is true that the circular from the director of the prisons administration department of 9 June 2011219 only indicates the sole obligation that “the prisoner shall be clearly informed, in a language that they understand, of the compulsory nature of appeal to a higher administrative authority, prior to any possible recourse to the courts”. Nevertheless, in reality, article 91 of the Prisons Act, which expressly provides that “when prisoners are placed in punishment wings, or in confinement, they may refer the case to the urgent applications judge, in application of article L.521-2 of the code of administrative justice (code de justice administrative)” appears to be ignored. th The consequences of appeals on the substance of rulings lodged by prisoners are limited if not practically non-existent because, as far as the harshest sanction is concerned, the applicant is no longer in a punishment cell when the judge is led to make a ruling on their case. Indeed, such remedies are not suspensive whereas decisions delivered by disciplinary committees are immediately enforceable. However, ECtHR case law establishes that appeals should be brought before the judge in a manner that is sufficiently fast to be deemed efficacious220. For this reason, the French Senate introduced a presumption of urgency in the first reading in Parliament, considering that placement in a punishment cell constitutes a situation of urgency in itself, liable to seriously infringe prisoners’ fundamental rights. In the end this proposal was not adopted. In addition to the rulings made against France by the ECtHR, the annual report for 2010 from the CPT issued the following recommendation: “an effective remedy procedure should exist making it possible to re-examine verdicts of guilt and sanctions imposed, within a period of time that allows all the difference to be made in practice.” 2.2 Misapplication of Statutory Provisions as an Indirect Means of Discipline. 2.2.1 Organised Exclusion within “Differentiated Regimes” The Prisons act ratified the principle of “differentiated regimes”, article 89 providing that the prison regime for persons in custody “is determined taking their personality, health, dangerousness and efforts in terms of social rehabilitation into account. The placement of prisoners under harsher 217 Article L. 521-1 of the Code of Administrative Law (Code de Justice Administrative). Article L. 521-2 of the Code of Administrative Law (Code de Justice Administrative). 219 Circular JUSK 1140024C. 220 rd ECtHR, 3 April 2001, Kennan vs. the United Kingdom. 218 125