RESOLUTION DH (96) 606
CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF 8 FEBRUARY 1996
IN THE CASE OF A. AND OTHERS AGAINST DENMARK
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 November 1996
at the 576th 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 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A. and others delivered on 8 February 1996 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 20826/92) against Denmark, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 August 1992 under Article 25 of the Convention by A. and nine others, all Danish nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint relating to the excessive length of certain proceedings in a liability and compensation dispute between the applicants, all haemophiliacs infected with HIV, and the Ministry of Health, the National Health Board, the company Novo-Nordisk Limited and the National Serum Institute;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 6 July 1995;
Whereas, in its judgment of 8 February 1996, the Court:
– held, by six votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, with respect to Mr A., Mr Eg., Mr C. and his widow, Mr D., Mr E., Mr F. and his widow, and Mr and Mrs G. and their son;
– held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of that same provision with respect to Mrs Feldskov and Mrs Lykkeskov Jacobsen;
- held, unanimously, that the Government of Denmark was to pay, within three months, 100 000 Danish kroner to each of Mr A., Mr Eg., Mrs Christensen, Mr D., Mr E. and Mrs F. and to Mr and Mrs G. jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and for legal fees and expenses, 234 938 Danish kroner, plus any applicable VAT, less 27 964 French francs to be converted into Danish kroner at the rate applicable on the date of delivery of the present judgment; that simple interest at an annual rate of 9,25% should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
– dismissed, unanimously, 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 Denmark to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 8 February 1996, having regard to Denmark'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 Denmark 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 within the time-limit set, the Government of Denmark paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 8 February 1996, payment confirmed by a letter of the applicants' counsel, dated 11 March 1996,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Denmark, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (96) 606
Information provided by the Government of Denmark
during the examination of the case of A and others
by the Committee of Ministers
The Government is of the opinion that, taking into account the status of the European Convention and the Court's case-law in domestic law (see Resolution DH (95) 212 adopted following the Jersild judgment of 23 September 1994), the Danish courts will not fail to adapt their practice in civil cases, in such a way as to ensure ex officio a better control of the compliance with the reasonable time requirement in cases of this kind.
In this respect, the government recalls that the Court's judgment has been distributed to the courts concerned and that an exhaustive summary in Danish of this judgment has been published in EU-ret og Menneskeret (no. 3, June 1996), with comments underlining the necessity for the Danish courts to adapt their practice to the European Court's judgment.
In the light of this information, the Government of Denmark considers that it has fulfilled its obligations under Articles 53 and 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Nevertheless, the government wishes to specify that within the context of the national proceedings, the Supreme Court's judgment in the case which gave rise to the case of “A. and others v. Denmark” was pronounced on 3 October 1996. In respect of two of the three applicants the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the High Court for Eastern Denmark's decision in favour of the National Health Authorities and Novo Nordisk/AS while it found the National Health Authorities liable towards the third applicant.
In a general way, the government wishes to point out that a fund for haemophiliacs was established in June 1995. The fund has a capital of 20 million Danish kroner. Payments can be made to haemophiliacs, their families and their surviving relatives. 20% will cover living costs of the haemophiliacs, 80% will go to living haemophiliacs as well as surviving relatives of haemophiliacs and include coverage of lost salaries and compensation for a reduced life expectancy. In 1995, a total amount of 7,2 million Danish kroner was paid to haemophiliacs and their families from this fund.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy