CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 mai 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 86 May 2006 Hansen and Others v. Denmark (dec.) - 26194/03 Decision 29.5.2006 [Section V] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Exemption from costs constitutes adequate redress: inadmissible   Article 34 Victim Exemption from costs constitutes adequate redress: inadmissible   The applicants are a family consisting of father, mother and son. The son, M., was born in 1977 and has been multi-handicapped from birth. In 1991 the applicants obtained access to medical records and in July 1993 the mother, on behalf of the son, instituted proceedings before the High   Court of Eastern Denmark against the hospital where the birth had taken place. Between May 1994 and 1998 information was sought from the Medico-Legal Council, the parties failing to agree on the questions to be put. In 1999 and 2000 procedural questions were discussed and decided. Also in 1999 the father and mother joined the proceedings seeking compensation for their own damage. The trial took place in September 2000. By judgment of 13   December 2000 the High Court found against the applicants. The son was ordered to pay legal costs to the defendant in the amount of DKK 100,000 equal to approximately EUR 13,330. This sum was covered by M’s grant of legal aid. The father and mother were ordered to pay legal costs to the defendant in the amount of DKK 50,000 equal to approximately EUR 6,660. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court. They were refused legal aid for the appeal proceedings. By judgment of 24   April   2003 the Supreme Court found against the applicants. However, it exempted them entirely from paying the costs of the defendant public authorities, having regard to the extraordinary length of the proceedings. Inadmissible under Article 6(1): The Court is satisfied that at least in substance it acknowledged a failure to observe the reasonable time requirement. Accordingly, the crucial issue remains whether the applicants were granted sufficient redress therefore. Having regard to the duration of the proceedings which lasted almost ten years and the applicants’ contribution to this length, the Court is satisfied that the overall redress awarded by the Supreme Court, even if it cannot be exactly quantified, was reasonable in comparison to what the Court would have awarded in a similar case. The applicants cannot, therefore, claim to be victims of a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time: manifestly ill‑founded .   © 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