CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 octobre 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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. October 1998 F.E. v. France - 38212/97 Judgment 30.10.1998 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Reasonable time Access to a court in order to obtain additional compensation for damage sustained by person infected with the Aids virus following transfusion of a blood product, and length of proceedings in Court of Cassation: violations   [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.   Right of access to a court “Right to a court”: secured by Article 6 – subject to limitations which may not, however, impair its very essence. Possibility of bringing judicial proceedings: not contested – in addition to an application to administrative courts, applicant brought civil action against Fondation Saint-Marc in Colmar tribunal de grande instance seeking compensation for damage he had sustained – but, after his acceptance of offer from Compensation Fund, Court of Cassation quashed and annulled, without remitting case for reconsideration, Court of Appeal’s judgment upholding compensation claim. Neither the wording of Act of 31 December 1991 nor its legislative history could have made applicant think that his acceptance of the Fund’s offer could result in his being deprived of standing to bring proceedings against the party responsible for his infection in order to obtain a higher sum in compensation than he had been awarded by Fund – on date when he accepted offer system was not sufficiently clear or sufficiently attended by safeguards to prevent misunderstanding as to procedures for making use of available remedies and restrictions stemming from simultaneous use of them – hence no effective right of access to a court. Conclusion : violation (seven votes to two). B.   Length of proceedings Period to be taken into consideration: only length of proceedings in Court of Cassation, complained of by applicant and examined by Commission, in issue before Court – that is two years and three months. Reasonableness of length of proceedings – to be assessed in light of circumstances of case and having regard to criteria laid down in Court’s case-law. Complexity of case: reference to plenary Court of Cassation indicated that case was somewhat complex, but that court had already given several rulings on legal issue raised. Applicant’s conduct: could not be held responsible for any delay. Conduct of relevant authorities: more than one year and three months between time when case was referred to Second Civil Division of Court of Cassation and end of proceedings – what was at stake in proceedings, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, of crucial importance to applicant in view of disease from which he was suffering – notwithstanding a certain complexity, exceptional expedition called for, especially since facts of controversy had been known to Court of Cassation for several years. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: applicant suffered loss of opportunities and undeniable non-pecuniary damage – compensation awarded. B.   Costs and expenses: in absence of any claim for costs and expenses, Court not required to rule on question. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum for damage (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