CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 24 juillet 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7F95B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s780D430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt }     Resolution DH (2000) 93 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 12 October 1999 in the case of Perks and others against the United Kingdom   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 July 2000 at the 716th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No.   11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Perks and others case delivered on 12 October 1999 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in several applications (Nos. 25277/94, 25279/94, 25280/94, 25281/94, 25285/94, 28048/95, 28192/95 and 28456/95) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights respectively on 26 April 1994, on 27 April 1994, on 27 June 1994, on 27 June 1994, on 24 June 1994, on 14 July 1995, on 26 July 1995 and on 24 August 1995 under Article 25 of the unamended Convention by Mr Kevin Perks, Ms   Andrea Rowe (Kennedy), Mr   Gordon Mudryj, Mr   Robert Massey, Mr Leveson Knight, Mr   Alan Beattie, Mr Arthur Tilley and Mr   John Crane, eight British nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible their complaints that their detention, as a result of non ‑ payment of poll tax, was unlawful insofar as the magistrates’ courts exceeded the limit of their jurisdiction, that they could not claim any compensation for unlawful detention and that they were not legally represented and had no right to legal aid in the proceedings before the magistrates' court; Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Government of the United Kingdom on 20   November 1998; Whereas in its judgment of 12 October 1999 the Court: -   held, unanimously, that it is not necessary to consider of its own motion the complaints of Mr   Beattie under Article 5, paragraphs   1 and 5, of the Convention; - held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph   1, of the Convention in respect of Mr Perks; -   held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of any of the remaining six applicants; - held, unanimously, that Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Convention was not applicable; - held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3. c, of the Convention in respect of each of the eight applicants; -   held, by five votes to two, that this latter finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Ms Rowe, Mr   Mudryj, Mr Massey, Mr Beattie, Mr Knight, Mr Tilley and Mr   Crane; - held unanimously: a) that the Government of the respondent State was to pay Mr Perks, within three   months, for non-pecuniary damage, 5   500   pounds sterling; b) that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicants, within three   months, for costs and expenses, 28 000 pounds sterling, plus any value-added tax that may be chargeable, less 23   958   French francs, to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of delivery of the present judgment; c)   that simple interest at an annual rate of 7.5% should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement; -   dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction; Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   54 of the Convention which are, for the time being, applicable by analogy to cases under Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention as amended by Protocol No.   11; Having invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 12 October 1999, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as the one found in this case, notably through the amendment by the Lord Chancellor of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989 by the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 (see Resolution DH   (97)   506 in the Benham case), and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned; Having satisfied itself that on 15 December 1999 and 4 January 2000, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 12   October 1999, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.