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.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy