[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_3,1_3,1_3″ _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” background_enable_mask_style=”on” background_mask_style=”wave” background_mask_color=”rgba(0,0,0,0.08)” custom_padding=”||6px|||” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_3″ _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″ _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″ _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_circle_counter title=”Estimated reading time (in minutes)” number=”1″ percent_sign=”off” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” title_font=”Amiri||||||||” max_width=”137px” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_circle_counter][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_divider][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/gregorydamy.niceavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/254.jpeg” title_text=”Papers with title legal aid on a table.” _builder_version=”4.21.0″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.21.0″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Amiri||||||||” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
In a judgment of June 21, 2012, the second civil chamber declared that there was no reason to seize the Constitutional Council of the following priority question of constitutionality, transmitted by the Court of Appeal of Reims: “The article 7 of Law No.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a091-647 of 10 July 1991 relating to legal aid infringes the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 1, 6 and 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the article 1 of the\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>Constitution\u00a0<\/span>?\u00a0\u201c.<\/span><\/p>\n Firstly, the question posed is not new because it does not relate to the interpretation of a constitutional provision that the Constitutional Council has not yet had the opportunity to apply.\u00a0Secondly, the question posed is not serious in that the fact of reserving the benefit of legal aid to the person whose action does not appear, manifestly, inadmissible or unfounded, on the one hand, does not infringe the principle of equality, which does not prevent the legislator from regulating different situations differently or from derogating from equality for reasons of general interest, provided that, in both case, the resulting difference in treatment is directly linked to the purpose of the law which establishes it and that, in the exercise of this power,\u00a0it does not deprive the guarantees of the constitutional requirements and, on the other hand, does not entail a substantial infringement of the right to an effective remedy since the person to whom the benefit of legal aid has not been granted has a means of appeal against the decision to refuse this aid, retains the right to take legal action to support its request and, in the event that the judge grants its action, obtain reimbursement of the costs, expenses and fees that she has exposed or paid, up to the amount of the legal aid which she would have benefited from in view of her resources.\u00a0The costs and fees that she has incurred or paid, within the limit of the amount of legal aid she would have received given her resources.\u00a0The costs and fees it has incurred or paid,\u00a0within the limit of the amount of legal aid which she would have benefited from taking into account her resources.\u00a0does not result in a substantial infringement of the right to an effective remedy provided that the person to whom the benefit of legal aid has not been granted has a means of appeal against the decision to refuse this aid, retains the right to apply to a court to support his claim and, in the event that the judge grants his action, to obtain reimbursement of the costs, expenses and fees that he has incurred or paid, up to the amount of the legal aid which she would have benefited from having regard to her resources.\u00a0The costs and fees that she has incurred or paid, within the limit of the amount of legal aid she would have received given her resources.\u00a0The costs and fees that she has incurred or paid, within the limit of the amount of legal aid she would have received given her resources.\u00a0does not result in a substantial infringement of the right to an effective remedy provided that the person to whom the benefit of legal aid has not been granted has a means of appeal against the decision to refuse this aid, retains the right to apply to a court to support his claim and, in the event that the judge grants his action, to obtain reimbursement of the costs, expenses and fees that he has incurred or paid, up to the amount of the legal aid which she would have benefited from having regard to her resources.\u00a0The costs and fees it has incurred or paid,\u00a0within the limit of the amount of legal aid which she would have benefited from taking into account her resources.\u00a0The costs and fees that she has incurred or paid, within the limit of the amount of legal aid she would have received given her resources.<\/span><\/p>\n In this section we will provide an overview and analysis of Section 7 of the Legal Aid Act.\u00a0We will explore the main provisions, objectives and implications of this article in the context of legal aid.<\/span><\/p>\n In this section we will explore the dismissal of a Priority Question of Constitutionality (\u00a0<\/span>QPC<\/span><\/a>\u00a0) related to Section 7 of the Legal Aid Act.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>We will examine the reasons for rejection, the legal consequences and the potential impact on access to justice and the provision of\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0legal aid\u00a0<\/span><\/span>services .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nUnderstanding Article 7 of the Legal Aid Act: \u2013<\/span><\/h2>\n
Rejection of a QPC: Implications and Legal Considerations: \u2013<\/span><\/h2>\n