CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 mars 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 16 March 2000 M.C. and Others v. the United Kingdom - 25283/94, 25690/94, 26701/95 et al. Judgment 21.3.2000 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Detention for non-payment of community charge: struck out Each of the applicants was committed by a magistrates’ court to a term of imprisonment for failing to pay the community charge (poll tax). At the time, the applicants were dependent on State benefits or living on a low income. It was established that the non-payment was due to the debtor’s wilful refusal or culpable neglect. Legal aid was not available and the applicants were not legally represented. Two of the applicants served their entire term of imprisonment, while the remaining three were released on bail after applying for judicial review, which resulted the magistrates’ imprisonment orders in their cases being quashed. The applicants' lawyers have not submitted any memorial to the Court and no pertinent correspondence has been received from the applicants since July 1999. In the light of this, the Court concluded that the applicants did not intend to pursue their applications and consequently struck the case out of the list.   © 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