CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 11 janvier 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 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 Karakaya case delivered on 26 August 1994 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against France lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 September 1993 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Mustafa Karakaya, a Turkish national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint of the excessive length of certain compensation proceedings brought by the applicant, a haemophiliac infected with the Aids virus following blood transfusions;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 13 April 1994;        Whereas in its judgment of 26 August 1994 the Court, unanimously:        - held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);        - held that the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 200 000 French francs for non-material damage and 58 114 French francs for costs and expenses;        - dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claims;        Having regard to the rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 26 August 1994, having regard to France's obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of France 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 on 6 November 1994 at the latest the Government of France paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 26 August 1994,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                   Appendix to Resolution DH (95) 6           Information provided by the Government of France          during the examination of the case of Karakaya                   by the Committee of Ministers        The Act of 31 December 1991 has established a special compensation mechanism for haemophiliac and transfused patients who have been infected following injections of blood products. Section 47 provides for the creation of a special compensation fund and defines the procedure before this organ.        Decree No. 93-906 of 12 July 1993 fixes the manner in which the said Section 47 shall be applied.   This text indicates the conditions governing the fund's exercise of its subrogation right and the practical arrangements to be observed in order to harmonise the administrative and judicial compensation procedures. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 16 of the decree, the courts must inform the fund of any compensation claim lodged.   In a similar manner, Section 17 provides that the fund must indicate to the courts concerned, within one month from the date of reception of the judicial file, whether it has received any compensation claims in the case at issue and of its decision vis-à-vis those claims; the fund must also indicate whether or not it intends to intervene before the courts.        The French Government considers that this co-ordination and collaboration between the courts and the fund will accelerate the compensation procedure in cases of contaminated haemophiliacs and prevent the repetition of violations similar to that found by the Court in the present case.