X v. France

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.

March 1992

X v. France - 18020/91

Judgment 31.3.1992

Article 6

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Length of compensation proceedings brought first before the administrative authorities and then in the administrative courts by a haemophiliac infected with the 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.PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION

Applicant had died, but his parents wished to continue proceedings. In accordance with its case-law, the Court accepted that they were entitled to take his place in the proceedings

II.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

A.Applicability

Outcome of the proceedings decisive for private rights and obligations in view of purpose of action.

Conclusion: Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously).

B.Compliance

1.Period to be taken into consideration

Starting-point: preliminary claim filed with the Minister for Health.

Close: proceedings still pending, an appeal having been lodged with the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal.

Total: over two years already.

2.Relevant criteria

Reasonableness of the length of proceedings - to be assessed in light of circumstances of case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law.

Complexity of case: Case of some complexity and investigations could have been necessary to determine State's liability and its extent.

Applicant's behaviour: Mr. X had drawn the administrative court's attention to the worsening of his condition and to the immediacy of the risks confronting him, and the choice of the means of redress fell to the applicant alone.

Conduct of national authorities: what was at stake in the proceedings was of crucial importance for the applicant, having regard to the incurable disease from which he was suffering and his reduced life expectancy and called for exceptional diligence, notwithstanding the number of cases pending - yet administrative court did not use its powers to make orders for speeding up of the proceedings - reasonable time had already been exceeded when judgment was delivered at first instance, and that failure could not be redressed by the subsequent proceedings in the Administrative Court of Appeal, whatever the outcome as to the merits.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

III.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION

A.Non-pecuniary damage: award of the compensation sought.

B.Costs and expenses: 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