CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 22 avril 1998

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s1E59FF54 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s35F1F2CB { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE6ACF1B2 { margin-top:10pt; margin-left:30pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA08C72A { margin-top:10pt; margin-left:12pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s995BFA6B { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt } RESOLUTION DH (98) 90 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1997 IN THE CASE OF ROBINS AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 April 1998 at the 618th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)           The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),         Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Robins case delivered on 23 September 1997 and transmitted the same days to the Committee of Ministers;         Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 22410/93) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14   March 1993 under Article   25 of the Convention by Mr   Geoffrey Robins and Ms Margaret Robins, United Kingdom nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints that their case, as regards the costs proceedings, was not heard within a reasonable time;         Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 16   September 1996;         Whereas in its judgment of 23 September 1997 the Courtunanimously: -           held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; -                   - held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants; -                   - held: -                   (a) that the respondent State was to pay to the applicants, within three months, in respect of costs and expenses, 2 700 pounds sterling together with any VAT which may be chargeable; -                   (b) that simple interest at an annual rate of 8% should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement; -                   - 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 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 23 September 1997, having regard to the United Kingdom's obligation under Article   53 of the Convention to abide by it;           Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of United Kingdom gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;         Having satisfied itself that on 30 October 1997, within the time-limit set, the Government of the United Kingdom paid the applicants the sum provided for in the judgment of 2 September 1997,         Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of United Kingdom that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.   Appendix to Resolution DH (98) 35 Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom during the examination of the Robins case by the Committee of Ministers           The Government of the United Kingdom has indicated that the European Court of Human Rights' judgment was circulated to the Legal Aid Board, the Department of Social Security and Court of Appeal in order to prevent new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment.         In addition, summaries of the judgment have been published in the European Human Rights Law Review and in the Human Rights Case Digest.