CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 juillet 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s7C768949 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sD66075BF { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic } 564 13.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not Final [1] Clift v. the United Kingdom (application no. 7205/07)   EARLY RELEASE SCHEME DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PRISONER SERVING LONG, FIXED-TERM SENTENCE   Unanimously   Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Sean Clift, is a British national who was born in 1966 and lives in Westcliff ‑ on ‑ Sea, England. His case concerns the difference in treatment as regards the early release of prisoners depending on the length of the sentence originally imposed.   Mr Clift was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment in April 1994 for serious crimes including attempted murder. In March 2002 he became eligible for release on parole and the Parole Board recommended his release. Under the legislation applicable at the time, prisoners serving fixed-term sentences of imprisonment of 15 years or more were required to secure, in addition to a positive recommendation from the Parole Board, the approval of the Secretary of State for early release. However, prisoners serving fixed-term sentences of less than 15 years and those serving life sentences were entitled to early release upon the positive recommendation of the Parole Board only; no Secretary of State approval was required. The Secretary of State rejected the Parole Board’s recommendation in Mr Clift’s case, finding that to release him would pose an unacceptable risk to the public. Mr Clift was finally released on licence in March 2004, after the Secretary of State approved release following a further positive recommendation by the Parole Board at that time.   In the meantime, Mr Clift brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse his early release in 2002. In June 2003, the divisional court dismissed the claim. Mr Clift’s appeal was subsequently dismissed by the court of appeal and, in December 2006, by the House of Lords. Their Lordships did not find the difference in treatment to be the result of Mr Clift’s “status”, such as to fall within the prohibition on discrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Clift complained that his continued imprisonment following the recommendation of the Parole Board that he be released on licence violated his rights under Article 5 in conjunction with Article 14 on account of the difference in treatment compared with prisoners serving fixed-term sentences of less than 15 years or life sentences.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 January 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Lech Garlicki (Poland), President, Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina) David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland) Päivi Hirvelä (Finland) Ledi Bianku (Albania), judges,   and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   Whether the applicant’s status fell under the prohibition of discrimination   The Court underlined that the protection under Article 14 of the Convention was not limited to different treatment based on characteristics which were personal in the sense of being innate or inherent. Moreover, the term “other status” had been given a wide meaning in the Court’s case-law.   The Court had held in another case [2] that differences in treatment between prisoners in relation to parole did not confer to them “other status” where the different treatment was based on the gravity of the offence. However, Mr Clift did not allege a difference of treatment based on the gravity of the offence he had committed, but one based on his position as a prisoner serving a fixed-term sentence of more than 15 years. While sentence length bore some relationship to the perceived gravity of the offence, a number of other factors could also be relevant, including the sentencing judge’s assessment of the risk posed by the applicant to the public.   Where an early release scheme applied differently to prisoners depending on the length of their sentences, there was a risk that, unless objectively justified, it would run counter to the need to ensure protection of the individual from arbitrary detention under Article 5. The Court concluded that Mr Clift did enjoy “other status” for the purposes of Article 14.   Whether the applicant was in an analogous position to other prisoners treated more favourably   In order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there had to be a difference in the treatment of people in analogous or relevantly similar – but not necessarily identical – situations. The Court noted that the failure to approve the early release of a prisoner was not intended to constitute further punishment but to reflect the assessment that the prisoner posed an unacceptable risk upon release. As regards the risk assessment of a prisoner eligible for early release, no distinction could be drawn between long-term prisoners serving less than 15 years, long-term prisoners serving fifteen years or more and life prisoners. The methods of assessing risk were in principle the same for all categories of prisoners. The Court therefore concluded that Mr Clift could claim to be in an analogous position to long-term prisoners serving less than 15 years and life prisoners.   Whether the difference in treatment was objectively justified   The Court accepted that differences in treatment between groups of prisoners might be justified in principle if they pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the public, provided that it could be demonstrated that those to whom more stringent early release regimes applied posed a higher risk to the public upon release. The imposition of a fixed-term sentence rather than a life sentence appeared to indicate that Mr Clift posed a lower and not a higher risk when released. It was therefore difficult to see any objective justification for a system in which prisoners serving fixed-term sentences of 15 years or more were subject to more stringent conditions for early release than life prisoners.   As regards the difference in treatment between those serving more and those serving less than 15 years, the Court accepted that such a distinction might not automatically be discriminatory. However, any distinction in treatment was only justified where it achieved the legitimate aim pursued. In Mr Clift’s case, the United Kingdom Government had failed to demonstrate how the approval of the Secretary of State required for certain groups of prisoners addressed concerns for public security.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the early release scheme to which Mr Clift had been subject lacked objective justification. The Court therefore unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 in conjunction with Article 14.   Just satisfaction   The Court held that the United Kingdom had to pay Mr Clift 10,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution . [2] Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, 8 July 1999