CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 21 septembre 1993

.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 case of Pham Hoang against France delivered on 25 September 1992 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against France lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 August 1987 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Tuan Tran Pham Hoang, a French national, who complained that he had been convicted for a customs offence on the basis of statutory presumptions of guilt which were contrary to Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 (art. 6-1, art. 6-2), of the Convention and that he had not been assisted by a lawyer during the hearing of his appeal on points of law;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 7 June 1991;        Whereas in its judgment of 25 September 1992 the Court unanimously:        -   rejected the Government's preliminary objection;        -   held that there had been no breach of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 (art. 6-1, art. 6-2);        -   held that there had been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 3.c (art. 6-3-c);        - held that this finding of a breach constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained;        - held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, 30 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses;        -   dismissed 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 France to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 25 September 1992, 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 France 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 France has paid the applicant, on 26 February 1993, the sum provided for in the judgment of 25 September 1992,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                  Appendix to Resolution DH (93) 31          Information provided by the Government of France          during the examination of the Pham Hoang case                  by the Committee of Ministers        Law No. 91-647 of 10 July 1991 on legal aid has changed the legal aid system.        In pursuance of Section 10 of this law, legal aid is granted to plaintiffs or defendants in contentious or non-contentious proceedings before any court.        A Legal Aid Office has therefore been set up at each tribunal de grande instance to decide on applications for legal aid relating to proceedings before the administrative or criminal courts of first and second instance.   A Legal Aid Office has also been set up at the Court of Cassation, the Conseil d'Etat and the Refugee Appeals Board.        A practising or retired judge of the Court of Cassation is in charge of that Court's Legal Aid Office.   It is also staffed by two members selected by the Court of Cassation, two counsels at the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation, one representative of the Ministry for the Budget, one representative of the Ministry for Social Affairs and one member appointed to represent users' interests.        As a general rule, legal aid is granted where the applicant has insufficient means and when his action does not appear manifestly inadmissible and unfounded, although this last condition does not apply to certain categories of persons including persons accused of crimes, offences, misdemeanours or summary offences and convicted persons.        Sub-section 3 of Section 7 of the law provides that, in respect of cassation, applications for legal aid shall be turned down where no serious ground of appeal on points of law can be found to exist, that is where an appeal is manifestly destined to fail.   This provision applies to all applicants to the Court of Cassation.        Appeals may be made against Legal Aid Offices' decisions; such appeals in cassation cases are referred to the President of the Court of Cassation, whose ruling is issued in an order not subject to appeal.