CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 18 novembre 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Granger case, delivered on 28 March 1990 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 December 1985 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Joseph Granger, a British national, who complained that he had been refused legal aid for his representation at a hearing of his appeal against conviction for perjury;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Government of the United Kingdom on 27 February 1989 and by the Commission on 16 March 1989;        Whereas in its judgment of 28 March 1990 the Court:        -     dismissed unanimously the government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;        -     held unanimously that there had been a violation of paragraph 3.c, taken together with paragraph 1, of Article 6 (art. 6-3-c, art. 6-1) of the Convention;        -     held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the case under Articles 5, 8 and 13 (art. 5, art. 8, art. 13);        -     held by four votes to three that the United Kingdom was to pay to the applicant 1 000 pounds for non-pecuniary damage;        -     held unanimously that the United Kingdom was to pay to the applicant 7 000 pounds, inclusive of value added tax, for legal costs and expenses;        -     dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 28 March 1990, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Having satisfied itself that the Government of the United Kingdom has paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.   Appendix to Resolution DH(91)29   Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom during the examination of the Granger case before the Committee of Ministers        The whole system for the administration of legal aid was reformed by the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 which came into effect on 1 April 1987.   In particular, the former functions of the Legal Aid Committee of the Law Society of Scotland were transferred to the Scottish Legal Aid Board.        The availability of legal aid in connection with an appeal against, inter alia, conviction is determined by Section 25 of this act and also by Section 13 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 1987.        As regards refusal to grant legal aid in connection with any criminal and justiciary appeals, the Scottish Lord Justice General circulated a Practice Note to all appeal court chairmen and clerks on 4 December 1990.        According to this Practice Note, in any appeal where legal aid has been refused and the court considers that, prima facie, an appellant may have substantial grounds for taking the appeal and it is in the interests of justice that he should have legal representation in arguing these grounds, the court will adjourn the hearing ex-officio, even if a request to that effect was not put forward by the appellant, and make a recommendation to the Legal Aid Board that the decision to refuse legal aid should be reviewed.        The sums awarded to the applicant by the Court were paid on 5 April 1990.