CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 9 September 2020 Published on 28 September 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 49096/19 Christopher STANTON and Raymond Michael BOWEN against the United Kingdom lodged on 16 September 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants were sentenced to indeterminate sentences of imprisonment. Following a Parole Board review in each of their cases, the Board ordered their release subject to the condition that they reside at designated approved premises. In both cases their actual release was delayed because accommodation in the premises designated was not immediately available, a fact known to the Parole Board at the time it directed release. The first applicant, Mr Stanton, was released 118 days after the Parole Board directed his release. The second applicant, Mr Bowen, was released 69 days after the Parole Board directed his release. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the detention of the applicants following the decision of the Parole Board in each of their cases to direct release compatible with Article   5 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention because the applicants’ release did not automatically follow the direction of the Parole Board but depended on place being found for them in approved premises?