CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 15 novembre 1996

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s4AB489F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:20pt } .sD8D566C3 { height:0pt; text-align:left; display:block; position:absolute; z-index:-1 } .sF60A7932 { margin-top:89.55pt; margin-left:180.8pt; position:absolute } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify }   INTERIM RESOLUTION DH (96) 674 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No.   17821/91 KAY AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 November 1996 at the 576th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the report drawn up on 1 March 1994 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 14 December 1990 by Mr   James Kay against the United Kingdom (Application No.   17821/91);   Whereas on 28 March 1994 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article   32, paragraph   1, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention;   Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 7 July 1993, the applicant complained of having been recalled to a psychiatric hospital, without prior medical assessment, on termination of his prison sentence, and of subsequent delays before the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which had maintained the applicant's detention in hospital;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by sixteen votes to one, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, and by fifteen votes to two the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   5, paragraph   4, of the Convention;   Whereas, at the 517th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 21 September 1994, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   5, paragraph 1, and that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention,   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case;   Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention, with a view to adopting the final resolution.