CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 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 Curley v. the United Kingdom - 32340/96 Judgment 28.3.2000 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-4 Review by a court Review by Parole Board of detention "at Her Majesty's pleasure": violation Facts : In 1979, at the age of 17, the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to be detained "at Her Majesty's pleasure". The tariff period of his detention was set at 8 years. After its expiry, several reviews were held by the Parole Board. The applicant was recaptured in July 1993 after absconding and a further review took place in August 1995, following which the Parole Board recommended that he should be released after one year. However, the Secretary of State did not accept this recommendation. The applicant was refused leave to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State's rejection of his representations against the decision not to accept the recommendation to release him. In August 1996 the applicant was notified that under interim arrangements introduced in response to the Court's judgments in Hussain and Singh his case would be referred back to the Parole Board for an oral hearing at which he could be represented. The Parole Board again recommended his release and this recommendation was accepted. Law : Article 5 § 4: Prior to his release, the applicant did not have a review by a court offering the necessary guarantees, since even under the interim arrangements the Parole Board did not have power to order his release. It was unnecessary to examine separately the claim that there was excessive delay in implementing the interim arrangements. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 5: It was uncontested that the foregoing violation could not give rise to an enforceable claim for compensation before the domestic courts. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 3: There is no indication that the lack of a review complying with Article 5 § 4 was sufficiently severe in its effects to disclose treatment contrary to this provision. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 41: The Court awarded the applicant 1,500 pounds sterling (GBP) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs.   © 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