Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
April 1994
Vallée v. France - 22121/93
Judgment 26.4.1994
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 filed with Minister for Solidarity, Health and Social Protection.
End: proceedings still pending.
Total: already more than four years.
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 to resolve issue of State's liability had been available for a long time - problems raised by existence of two parallel sets of proceedings could not justify length of proceedings.
Applicant's conduct: court's request for supporting documents made twenty-two months after proceedings had been instituted - Government had not accused applicant of any delay in producing the relevant documents.
Conduct of the national authorities:
(i) administrative authorities: slowness of Minister in submitting replies and statements in defence - period between publication of Act of 31 December 1991 and implementing decree of 12 July 1993 had been unacceptably long;
(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 reduced life expectancy; situation calling for exceptional diligence, notwithstanding number of cases pending - controversy the facts of which had been known to Government for several years and seriousness of which must have been obvious to them - yet Administrative Court had not used its powers to expedite proceedings - 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 - after that date, what was at stake in proceedings in terms of compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 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: full reimbursement.
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