PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 75362/01) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a United Kingdom national, Mr Egon von Bülow (“the applicant”), on 24 July 2001.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Messrs Atter McKenzie, solicitors practising in Evesham. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Evans of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

The applicant alleged that he had not had a proper review of the lawfulness of his continued detention as a mandatory life prisoner, invoking Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 2 July 2002, the Court declared the case partly inadmissible and adjourned the remainder for observations of the Government. By decision of 6 May 2003, the Court declared the remainder of the application admissible.

The applicant, but not the Government, filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant, Mr Egon von Bülow, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1946 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at HM Prison Erlestoke.

The applicant was convicted in 1975 for the murder of a policeman and attempted murder of two other policemen arising out of an incident in the early hours of 6 July 1974 when, on being stopped by the police, he had pulled out a pistol and shot all three officers. He was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment for the murder and to two concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment for the attempted murders.

After his trial, the trial judge recommended that he serve a tariff (minimum period of detention representing the elements of retribution and deterrence) of 20 years. The Lord Chief Justice agreed. The Secretary of State did not set a tariff.

By letter dated 25 July 2000, the applicant was informed that the Secretary of State had given fresh consideration to the tariff in his case. The letter stated that the Secretary of State had decided to set the tariff at 23 years and that, as this period had expired, the tariff was no longer a factor in the applicant’s continued detention.

By letter dated 27 March 2001, the applicant was informed that the Parole Board had not recommended his release. Though some improvement had been observed, it was noted that the reports on the applicant agreed that he still had some way to go before a move to open conditions could be contemplated. As his progress in a category C prison had been encouraging however, his next review was set to commence on March 2002.