CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 2023

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 12 June 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 42341/21 Mohamed YALAHOW against the United Kingdom lodged on 19 August 2021 communicated on 23 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicability of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to the recall of a fixed-term prisoner following his release on licence. In particular, it raises the question of whether the case of Etute v.   Luxembourg , no. 18233/16, 30 January 2018 can be reconciled with that of Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 968/04, 26 October 2004. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies with the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     Did Article 5 § 4 apply following the applicant’s recall to prison? If so, on the facts of the case, has it been violated?