Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
April 1998
Richard v. France - 33441/96
Judgment 22.4.1998
Article 6
Administrative proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of compensation proceedings brought by haemophiliac infected with Aids virus following blood transfusions, during which proceedings a friendly settlement was reached before Commission: 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.Government’s preliminary objection (application inadmissible on account of friendly settlement reached before Commission in connection with an earlier application concerning length of same proceedings)
Friendly settlement concerned only length of proceedings up to date of adoption of report noting that it had been reached.
Conclusion: objection dismissed (unanimously).
B.Merits of the complaint
1.Period to be taken into consideration
Starting-point: day after Commission adopted its report noting that friendly settlement had been reached.
End: proceedings still pending.
Total: two years and two months.
2.Reasonableness of length of proceedings
Complexity of case: case of some complexity, but information needed to determine State’s liability had been available for a long time.
Conduct of the applicant: not responsible for any delay.
Conduct of national authorities: what was at stake in proceedings was of crucial importance for applicant, in view of disease from which he was suffering and called for exceptional diligence, notwithstanding number of cases to be dealt with – period of two years and two months after adoption of Commission’s report noting that there had been a friendly settlement without any final decision yet being reached when proceedings had already lasted nearly six years and one month up to conclusion of that settlement far exceeded reasonable time in such a case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in full.
B.Costs and expenses: reimbursed in full.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant 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