Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)37

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Curley against the United Kingdom

(Application No. 32340/96, judgment of 28 March 2000, final on 28 June 2000)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the applicant inadequate review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention after the expiry of his mandatory sentence (violation of Article 5, paragraph 4), and the absence of any enforceable right to compensation in respect of that violation (violation of Article 5 paragraph 5) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the United Kingdom to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)37

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Curley against the United Kingdom

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the failure to carry out a timely review of the lawfulness of continued detention of the applicant after the expiration of his mandatory tariff (violation of Article 5, paragraph 4). In 1979, the applicant, then aged 17, was convicted of murder and sentenced to be detained ‘during her Majesty’s pleasure’. The tariff, which is the mandatory sentence to be served before a prisoner becomes eligible for release on licence, was set at eight years and expired in 1987, however, the applicant was not granted release by the Secretary of State until May 1997. The case also concerns the fact that the applicant had no enforceable right to compensation in respect of the Article 5, paragraph 4 violation (violation of Article 5 paragraph 5).

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
-	1 500 GBP	3 664.40 GBP less 4 100 FF (due to financial aid received from the Council of Europe)(conversion at the rate applicable on the date of delivery of the present judgment)	5 164.40 GBP less 4 100 FF	
Paid on 20/06/2000	

b) Individual measures

The applicant was released in May 1997. Consequently, no other individual measures were considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II.	General measures

With regard to the lack of adequate review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention after his tariff had expired, measures were adopted in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, specifically 28(5) which states that if the relevant part of a sentence is served and the Parole Board recommends release it is the duty of the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence (see Resolutions DH(98)149 and DH(98)150 in the cases of Hussain and Singh respectively). With regard to the violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, the United Kingdom confirms that the applicant would now be able to lodge an application for compensation following the mechanisms provided for by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The judgment has been published in the European Human Rights Reports at (2000) 31 EHRR 401.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.