The Case

The fact that the Parole Board had never in fact recommended the applicant's release following a review that did not meet the procedural requirements laid down by the European Court of Human Rights regarding mandatory life prisoners whose tariff had expired, did not deprive him of the right to have a review by a body offering the requisite guarantees. There had accordingly been a violation of his rights under art5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, as there was no domestic right to compensation for such a breach, there had been a violation of art5(5). He was accordingly awarded 2,200 for damages for non-pecuniary loss.