Information Note on the Court’s case-law
August 1994
Karakaya v. France - 22800/93
Judgment 26.8.1994
Article 6
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of compensation proceedings brought by haemophiliac infected with AIDS virus following blood transfusions: violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Applicability
Not disputed.
B.Compliance
1. Period to be taken into consideration
Starting-point: preliminary claim for compensation filed with Minister for Solidarity, Health and Social Protection.
End: service of judgment of Paris Administrative Court.
Total: four years and three months.
2. Relevant criteria
Reasonableness of length of proceedings — to be assessed in light of circumstances of case and having regard to the criteria laid down in Court's case-law.
Complexity of the case: case of some complexity, but the information necessary for resolving issue of State's liability had been available for a long time.
Applicant's conduct: in any case a period of more than three years and five months had elapsed between the filing of the applicant's pleadings and the end of the proceedings.
Conduct of the national authorities:
(i) administrative authorities: establishment of special compensation fund had not had effect of speeding up proceedings — slowness of Minister in submitting his reply and statement in defence;
(ii) administrative courts: crucial importance of what was at stake for applicant in the proceedings, in view of the incurable disease from which he was suffering and his limited life expectancy; situation had called for exceptional expedition, notwithstanding number of cases pending — more than four years to obtain judgment in first‑instance proceedings far exceeds reasonable time in such a case — reasonable time already exceeded even before applicant was paid compensation by fund — thereafter, what was at stake in the proceedings, in both pecuniary and non-pecuniary terms, had continued to be of great importance.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part.
B.Costs and expenses: reimbursement in full.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sums (unanimously).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy