CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 janvier 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 14 January 2000 Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 34979/97 Decision 25.1.2000 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Six month issue raised by the Court of its own motion: inadmissible The applicant was remanded in custody for 28 days in circumstances where the judge had no power to imprison. On 14 February 1996, upon the applicant’s request for judicial review, the High Court found that his remand in custody had been unlawful. The applicant’s subsequent action for compensation was to no avail. Inadmissible under Articles 5 § 1 and § 5, 6 and 13: The final decision to be taken into consideration was the High Court’s decision. The applicant introduced his application on 18   October 1996, outside the six month time-limit. As to whether the absence of observations from the Government on the question of the six months’ rule could have affected this position, it was recalled that this rule, in reflecting the wish of the Contracting Parties to prevent past decisions being called into question after an indefinite lapse of time, serves the interests not only of the respondent Government but also of legal certainty itself. It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which supervision is no longer possible. The application of the six months’ rule cannot be set aside solely because a Government have not made a preliminary objection based on it: out of time.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes