CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 9 September 2020 Published on 28 September 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 26104/19 Frank STOTT against the United Kingdom lodged on 7 May 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of imprisonment with a custodial term of twenty-one years and an extended licence period of four years. Under the applicable legislation, he will be eligible for early release at the two-thirds stage of his custodial sentence, upon the recommendation of the Parole Board. He is entitled to automatic release at the expiry of the custodial term. Prisoners sentenced to discretionary life sentences are eligible for early release, upon the recommendation of the Parole Board, at the expiry of the minimum term imposed, which is generally one half of the notional determinate sentence which would otherwise have been imposed. Prisoners sentenced to determinate sentences are entitled to automatic release at the halfway point of the sentence.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article   5 § 1 in the applicant’s case (see, for example, Clift v. the United Kingdom , no. 7205/07, 13 July 2010)? In particular:   (a)     does the applicant’s status as a prisoner serving an extended determinate sentence constitute “other status” within the meaning of Article   14 of the Convention?   (b)     is the applicant in an analogous position to other prisoners who benefited from different early release provisions?   (c)     is the difference in treatment between the applicant and other prisoners in an analogous position objectively justified within the meaning of Article 14?