Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KARAKAYA v. FRANCE - 22800/93 [1994] ECHR 25 (26 August 1994)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1994/25.html
Cite as: [1994] ECHR 25
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
In the case of Karakaya v. France*,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with
Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant
provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of the
following judges:
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mrs E. Palm,
Mr I. Foighel,
Mr A.N. Loizou,
Mr J.M. Morenilla,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr D. Gotchev,
Mr P. Jambrek,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Acting Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 June and 23 August 1994,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
_______________
* Note by the Registrar. The case is numbered 12/1994/459/540. The
first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to
the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers
indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court
since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating
applications to the Commission.
_______________
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission
of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 13 April 1994, within the
three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47
(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an
application (no. 22800/93) against the French Republic lodged with the
Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a Turkish national,
Mr Mustafa Karakaya, on 30 September 1993.
The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48
(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby France recognised the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The
object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts
of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its
obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with
Rule 33 para. 3(d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he
wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who
would represent him (Rule 30).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio
Mr L.-E. Pettiti, the elected judge of French nationality (Article 43
of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the
Court (Rule 21 para. 3(b)). On 26 April 1994, in the presence of the
Deputy Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other
seven members, namely Mrs E. Palm, Mr I. Foighel, Mr A.N. Loizou,
Mr J.M. Morenilla, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr D. Gotchev and Mr P. Jambrek
(Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).
4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal, acting
through the Deputy Registrar, consulted the Agent of the French
Government ("the Government"), the applicant's lawyer and the Delegate
of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings
(Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence,
the Deputy Registrar received the applicant's memorial on 9 May 1994
and the Government's memorial on 9 June. On 13 June the Secretary to
the Commission informed the Deputy Registrar that the Delegate did not
wish to reply in writing.
5. On 20 May 1994 the Commission produced the file on the
proceedings before it, as requested by the Deputy Registrar on the
President's instructions.
6. In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing took
place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on
21 June 1994. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mrs M. Merlin-Desmartis, administrative court judge,
on secondment to the Legal Affairs Department,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent,
Mrs O. Dorion, Ethics and Law Office, Health-Care
Professions Section, General Department of Health,
Ministry of Social Affairs, Health and
Urban Affairs, Counsel;
(b) for the Commission
Mr J.-C. Soyer, Delegate;
(c) for the applicant
Mr J.-A. Blanc, avocat at the Conseil d'Etat
and the Court of Cassation, Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Mrs Merlin-Desmartis, Mr Soyer and
Mr Blanc.
AS TO THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
7. Mr Mustafa Karakaya, a Turkish national born in 1956, has lived
for many years in France, where he worked as a mechanic until 1990,
when he was made redundant.
8. Since then he has been unemployed, and in December 1991 he was
registered as 80% disabled owing to the effects of illness on his
joints.
Mr Karakaya is a haemophiliac and has had numerous
blood transfusions. He was infected with the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) between 16 August and 29 October 1984, the latter date
having been determined only during proceedings in the Paris
Administrative Court (see paragraph 17 below). In April 1992 he was
classified as having reached stage III of infection - the last but one
stage - on the scale of the Atlanta Center for Disease Control.
A. The applications for compensation
1. The application to the administrative authority
9. On 29 December 1989 the applicant submitted a preliminary claim
for compensation to the Minister for Solidarity, Health and Social
Protection, in accordance with Article R.102 of the Administrative
Courts and Administrative Courts of Appeal Code (see paragraph 21
below). He sought 2,500,000 French francs (FRF), maintaining that he
had been infected with HIV as a result of the Minister's negligent
delay in implementing appropriate rules for the supply of blood
products.
Six hundred and forty-nine similar claims were submitted to the
Minister; at that time one thousand two hundred and fifty haemophiliacs
had been infected.
10. On 30 March 1990, one month before the expiry of the statutory
four-month time-limit (see paragraph 21 below), the Director-General
for Health rejected the applicant's claim.
2. The application to the administrative courts
11. On 23 May 1990 Mr Karakaya lodged an application with the
Versailles Administrative Court, seeking to have the ministerial
decision quashed and to be awarded compensation from the State in the
amount of FRF 2,500,000 plus statutory interest. On 18 October he
filed supplementary pleadings.
The Minister filed his defence pleadings on 22 April 1991. In
them he called on the court to dismiss the applicant's claim but added:
"However, in the event of the court's accepting the
principle of negligence on the part of the State, I would ask
you to appoint an expert with a view to establishing whether
the damage for which the applicant seeks compensation is
genuinely attributable to such negligence."
12. By an order of 1 July 1991 made under Article R.82 of the
Administrative Courts and Administrative Courts of Appeal Code, the
case was referred to the Conseil d'Etat, which assigned it to the Paris
Administrative Court, the court designated to deal with all the
applications lodged against the State by infected haemophiliacs.
(a) Preparation of the case for trial
(i) In the Paris Administrative Court
13. The case was set down for hearing on 8 April 1992. On 22 April
the court delivered an interlocutory judgment, worded as follows:
"... the State is liable in respect of haemophiliacs who
were infected with HIV in the course of transfusion of
non-heat-treated blood products during the period of liability
defined above, that is between 12 March and 1 October 1985."
It also ordered the applicant to produce a statement of any
indemnities he might have received in compensation for the damage set
out in the application.
The judgment was served on Mr Karakaya on 25 August 1992. On
27 August he sent the court a copy of the offers made by the
Compensation Fund (see paragraph 18 below).
14. A hearing took place on 3 February 1993. On 14 April the court
delivered a second interlocutory judgment, in which it appointed an
expert to determine as far as possible, inter alia, whether the
applicant had received any blood derivatives during the period of the
State's liability determined earlier and to give an opinion on the
likelihood of there being a causal link between the administration of
blood derivatives during that period and infection by HIV.
The judgment was served on Mr Karakaya on 13 September 1993.
(ii) In the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal
15. On 24 September 1993 Mr Karakaya appealed to the Paris
Administrative Court of Appeal against the two interlocutory judgments
of 22 April 1992 and 14 April 1993 in order to have them set aside and
to have the case decided at once by the appellate court without any
expert being appointed to give an opinion.
16. In a judgment of 31 March 1994 the Court of Appeal dismissed
the appeal, holding that the submissions challenging the first judgment
of the court below were inadmissible and that the expert opinion called
for in the lower court's second judgment was useful.
(b) The trial
17. On 10 December 1993 the expert filed his report at the Paris
Administrative Court. It included the following passage:
"... I am convinced that in all probability Mr Karakaya was
originally infected by HIV as a result of injections of
antihaemophilic blood derivatives that were administered
between 16 August 1984 and 29 October 1984."
The case was set down for hearing on 16 February 1994. On
2 March the Administrative Court delivered the following judgment:
"The expert's report has shown that a causal link between
the applicant's infection with the human immunodeficiency
virus and the administration of blood derivatives during the
period of the State's liability - as determined in a judgment
of 22 April 1992 - between 12 March and 1 October 1985 cannot
be regarded as having been established. The expert indicates
that Mr Karakaya was shown to be HIV positive on a sample
taken on 13 November 1984. It follows that Mr Karakaya's
application for an order that the State should compensate for
the damage sustained as a result of this infection must be
refused;
..."
The judgment was served on Mr Karakaya on 5 April 1994; he did
not appeal within the two-month period allowed.
B. The claim submitted to the Compensation Fund
18. On 17 April 1992 Mr Karakaya submitted a claim to the
Compensation Fund set up by the Act of 31 December 1991 (see
paragraph 19 below).
On 13 May 1992 the Fund offered him as "HIV-infection
compensation" a sum of FRF 1,234,500 payable in three instalments over
a period of two years, from which FRF 100,000 paid out by the private
haemophiliacs' solidarity fund was to be deducted. In addition, the
applicant was to receive a sum of FRF 411,500 as soon he developed AIDS
(acquired immunodeficiency syndrome).
Following acceptance of the offer by the applicant, the Fund
sent him an initial instalment of FRF 378,170 on 1 June 1992.
On 9 December 1992 the applicant requested the Fund to pay him
the remainder of the HIV-infection compensation immediately; he
referred it to the Paris Court of Appeal's judgments of
27 November 1992, in which the court had held that such compensation
could not be paid in instalments unless the persons receiving it
agreed.
On 18 February 1993 the Fund sent him the requested sum of
FRF 756,330.
II. The compensation machinery
A. Legislation
19. The Act of 31 December 1991 making miscellaneous social-welfare
provisions set up special machinery for the compensation of
haemophiliacs and transfusion patients who had been infected following
injections of blood products. Section 47 provides:
"I. Victims of damage resulting from infection with the
human immunodeficiency virus caused by transfusion of blood
products or injection of blood derivatives carried out within
the territory of the French Republic shall be compensated in
the manner set out below.
II. ...
III. Full compensation for the damage defined in
subsection I shall be provided by a Compensation Fund, having
legal personality, presided over by a serving or retired
divisional president or judge of the Court of Cassation and
administered by a compensation board.
...
IV. In their claims for compensation, victims or their
heirs shall provide proof of their infection with the human
immunodeficiency virus and of the transfusion of blood
products or injections of blood derivatives.
...
Victims or their heirs shall communicate to the Fund all the
information in their possession.
Within three months of the receipt of a claim, a period
which may be extended at the request of the victim or his
heirs, the Fund shall consider whether the conditions for
payment of compensation have been fulfilled. It shall
investigate the circumstances under which the victim was
infected and make any necessary inquiries, which may not be
resisted on grounds of professional secrecy.
...
V. The Fund shall be required to make an offer of
compensation to any victim referred to in subsection I within
a time-limit laid down by decree, which may not exceed six
months from the day on which the Fund receives full proof of
the damage ...
...
VI. The victim shall inform the Fund of any judicial
proceedings pending. If legal proceedings are brought, the
victim shall inform the court of his application to the Fund.
VII. ...
VIII. The victim shall not be entitled to take legal action
against the Compensation Fund unless his claim for
compensation has been dismissed, no offer has been made to him
within the time-limit referred to in the first paragraph of
subsection V, or he has not accepted an offer made to him.
Proceedings shall be brought in the Paris Court of Appeal.
IX. The Fund shall be subrogated, for an amount no higher
than the sums paid out, to the victim's rights against the
person liable for the damage and against persons required, for
whatever reason, to make full or partial reparation for that
damage, within the limits of those persons' liabilities.
However, the Fund may institute proceedings on the basis of
that subrogation only where the damage is attributable to
negligence.
The Fund may intervene in proceedings in the criminal
courts, even if it does not do so until the appeal stage,
where the victim or his heirs have claimed compensation as a
civil party in proceedings pending against the person or
persons responsible for the damage defined in subsection I.
In such cases it shall be considered a full party to the
proceedings and may have recourse to all the remedies
available in law.
If the acts which caused the damage have given rise to
criminal proceedings, the civil court shall not be required to
defer its decision until there has been a final decision by
the criminal court.
X. Unless otherwise provided, the provisions governing
the implementation of this section shall be laid down in a
decree issued after consultation of the Conseil d'Etat.
XI. ...
XII. The Compensation Fund's sources of revenue shall be
specified in a subsequent Act.
XIII. ...
XIV. ..."
B. Case-law
20. In three judgments of 9 April 1993 the Judicial Assembly of the
Conseil d'Etat decided that the State was wholly liable in respect of
persons who were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus
following transfusion of non-heat-treated blood products between
22 November 1984 and 20 October 1985.
III. The relevant procedural law
A. The rules applicable at the material time
21. At the material time the Administrative Courts and
Administrative Courts of Appeal Code contained, inter alia, the
following provisions:
Article R.102
"Except in cases concerning public works, proceedings may
not be instituted in the Administrative Court otherwise than
in the form of an appeal against a decision; such an appeal
shall be lodged within two months of the notification or the
publication of the contested decision.
Where no reply is forthcoming from the relevant authority
for more than four months, that silence is to be construed as
a decision rejecting the complaint.
..."
Article R.129
"The President of the Administrative Court or of the
Administrative Court of Appeal, or a judge delegated by one of
them, may, where the existence of an obligation cannot
seriously be contested, award an advance to a creditor who has
filed an application on the merits in the court in question.
He may, even of his own motion, make the payment of the
advance subject to the lodging of a security."
Article R.142
"Immediately after the application instituting the
proceedings has been registered by the registry, the president
of the court or, in Paris, the president of the division to
which the application has been transmitted, shall appoint a
rapporteur.
Under the authority of the president of the court or
division to which he belongs, the rapporteur shall, regard
being had to the circumstances of the case, fix the time-limit
to be given, if necessary, to the parties for the production
of supplementary pleadings, observations, statements of
defence or replies. He may request the parties to supply any
evidence or documents relevant to the resolution of the
dispute, which shall be added to the file so as to be
accessible to all the parties."
Article R.150
"Where one of the parties or the administrative department
has been asked to submit observations and has not complied
with the time-limit laid down pursuant to Articles R.142 and
R.147 of this code, the president of the court or division
shall issue a formal notice to comply.
In the event of force majeure, a final extension of time may
be granted.
If the formal notice to comply has no effect or if the final
time-limit given is not complied with, the court shall give
judgment."
Article R.151
"Where a final notice to comply relates to an administrative
department of the State, it shall be sent to the authority
with competence to represent the State; in other cases it
shall be sent to the party or his representative if he has
appointed one."
Article R.182
"A member of the Administrative Court or the Administrative
Court of Appeal may be assigned by the competent court or by
the latter's president to carry out any investigative measures
other than those provided for in sections 1 to 4 of this
chapter."
B. The current rules
22. Decree no. 93-906 of 12 July 1993 applies to all proceedings
pending at the date of its publication. It lays down provisions for
the implementation of section 47 of the Act of 31 December 1991 (see
paragraph 19 above):
"Part II
Provisions relating to actions seeking to establish
liability brought against those responsible for the damage
defined in subsection I of section 47 of the aforementioned
Act of 31 December 1991
Article 15
In order to bring the action by subrogation provided for in
subsection IX of section 47 of the aforementioned Act of
31 December 1991, the Fund may intervene in proceedings in any
of the administrative or ordinary courts, even if it does not
do so until the appeal stage. In such cases it shall be
considered a full party to the proceedings and may have
recourse to all the remedies available in law.
Article 16
The registries of the administrative and ordinary courts
shall send the Fund by registered post with recorded delivery
a copy of the procedural documents submitting to those courts
any initial or additional claim for compensation of the damage
defined in subsection I of section 47 of the aforementioned
Act of 31 December 1991.
Article 17
Within one month of receipt of the letter referred to in
Article 16, the Fund shall inform the president of the
relevant court by ordinary mail whether or not it has received
a claim for compensation with the same purpose and, if so,
what stage the procedure has reached. It shall also state
whether or not it intends to intervene in the proceedings.
Where the victim has accepted an offer made by the Fund, the
latter shall send the president of the court a copy of the
documents in which the offer was made and by which it was
accepted. The Fund shall, where relevant, indicate the stage
reached in proceedings instituted in the Paris Court of Appeal
under the provisions of Part I of this decree and forward any
judgment delivered by that court.
The registry shall notify the parties of the information
communicated by the Fund.
Article 18
The registry shall send the Fund copies of the decisions
given at first instance and, where relevant, on appeal in
proceedings in which the Fund has not intervened.
Article 19
...
Article 20
The provisions of Articles 15 to 19 shall be applicable to
cases pending on the date of entry into force of [this]
decree ..."
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
23. Mr Karakaya applied to the Commission on 30 September 1993,
alleging that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time as
required by Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
24. The Commission declared the application (no. 22800/93)
admissible on 19 January 1994. In its report of 9 March 1994
(Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the unanimous opinion that there
had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The full text
of the Commission's opinion is reproduced as an annex to this
judgment*.
_______________
* Note by the Registrar. For practical reasons this annex will appear
only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 289-B of
Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the
Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.
_______________
FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT
25. In their memorial the Government
"leave it to the Court's discretion to assess whether there
has been a breach of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention and
request that, if the question arises, the compensation for
non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Karakaya should be
awarded in the amount of FRF 200,000, to which costs and
expenses would fall to be added".
26. The applicant requested the Court to hold that
"there ha[d] been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention and order the respondent State to pay the
applicant FRF 350,000 for damage and FRF 58,114 for costs and
expenses".
AS TO THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)
27. Mr Karakaya complained of the time taken to deal with the claim
for compensation which he had lodged against the State. He alleged a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, which
provides:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable
time by [a] ... tribunal ..."
A. Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
28. It was common ground between the applicant and the Commission
that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was applicable in the instant case,
and the Government did not dispute this.
B. Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
1. Period to be taken into consideration
29. The period to be taken into consideration began on
29 December 1989, when the applicant lodged his preliminary claim for
compensation with the Minister for Solidarity, Health and Social
Protection (see paragraph 9 above). It ended on 5 April 1994, when the
Paris Administrative Court's judgment of 2 March 1994 was served (see
paragraph 17 above). It therefore amounted to four years and three
months.
2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
30. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be
assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and having
regard to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular
the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the
relevant authorities. On the latter point, what is at stake for the
applicant in the litigation has to be taken into account (see the
X v. France judgment of 31 March 1992, Series A no. 234-C, p. 90,
para. 32, and the Vallée v. France judgment of 26 April 1994,
Series A no. 289-A, p. 17, para. 34).
(a) Complexity of the case
31. According to Mr Karakaya, the case was not at all complex,
because the principles governing the State's liability for the
infection of haemophiliacs had been clear since the judgment given on
20 December 1991 by a full court of the Paris Administrative Court.
In its X v. France and Vallée v. France judgments the Court had already
held that periods of two years and, a fortiori, four years and three
months exceeded a reasonable time.
32. The Government pointed out the difficulties and uncertainties
that faced the courts before which the first compensation proceedings
were brought, until the Assembly of the Conseil d'Etat adopted its
judgment of 9 April 1993 establishing the basis of the State's
liability. Furthermore, it had been necessary to await the Health and
Social Affairs Inspectorate's report of September 1991 in order to
determine the date on which the authorities had been clearly alerted
to the role of blood transfusion in the transmission of AIDS.
33. The Commission accepted the applicant's submission in
substance.
34. In the Court's opinion, even if the case was of some
complexity, the information needed to determine the State's liability
had been available for a long time (see the X v. France and
Vallée judgments previously cited, p. 91, para. 36, and p. 18,
para. 38, respectively).
(b) The applicant's conduct
35. The Government emphasised that Mr Karakaya had produced his
supplementary pleadings five months after making his application to the
Administrative Court.
36. The applicant argued that this fact was wholly irrelevant;
under the provisions of the Administrative Courts Code, the court could
have communicated the application to the Minister of Health and given
him a time-limit for replying. Besides, the supplementary pleadings
were identical in every respect with those filed by the other four
hundred haemophiles in support of their applications.
37. Like the Commission, the Court notes that in any case more than
three years and five months elapsed between the filing of those
pleadings (18 October 1990) and the end of the proceedings
(5 April 1994).
(c) The conduct of the national authorities
(i) The administrative authorities
38. Mr Karakaya criticised the relevant minister for his slowness
in submitting his reply and his defence; he had taken three months to
respond to the preliminary claim and eleven months to file pleadings
in the court proceedings (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above). In
addition, Mr Karakaya was of the view that the Government had delayed
in setting up a compensation fund and he considered that the
one-and-a-half-year period between the publication of the Act of
31 December 1991 and that of the implementing decree of 12 July 1993
was unacceptable (see paragraphs 19 and 22 above).
39. The Government, on the other hand, maintained that the
authorities had been prompt to afford compensation to the persons
infected by blood transfusions, in particular through the Fund set up
by the Act of 31 December 1991.
40. Like the Commission, the Court points out that the
establishment of a special fund, however laudable, did not have the
effect of speeding up either main or supplementary proceedings in the
courts dealing with applications from infected persons. It also notes
that the Minister of Health filed his defence nearly eleven months
(22 April 1991) after the application had been made (23 May 1990) and
six months after the supplementary pleadings had been filed
(18 October 1990).
(ii) The administrative courts
41. In Mr Karakaya's submission, seeing that the average
expectation of life for a person infected with the AIDS virus was
twelve years, the Administrative Court should have used its power to
give directions in order to shorten the abnormally long periods of time
taken for procedural steps to be carried out and judgments to be
served. Moreover, the second interlocutory judgment (14 April 1993),
in which the court called for an expert medical opinion, was an
absurdity as it was given a year after the first one (22 April 1992),
which had already determined the period of the State's liability.
Despite the Fund's award of FRF 378,170 on 1 June 1992 and
FRF 756,330 on 18 February 1993, when a reasonable time had already
been exceeded, what was at stake in the proceedings in the
administrative courts remained of great importance both in
non-pecuniary terms and in terms of additional compensation.
42. The Government maintained that the first interlocutory
judgment, in which the applicant was asked to produce a statement of
compensation paid by the Fund, and the second one, in which the court
called for an expert medical opinion, had both been necessary.
The compensation paid by the Fund during the proceedings had
much reduced the importance of what was at stake financially in the
case, and the judgments given against the administrative authorities
by the Conseil d'Etat in April 1993 had likewise lessened its
significance in non-pecuniary terms.
43. Like the Commission, the Court considers that what was at stake
in the proceedings in issue was of crucial importance to the applicant
in view of the incurable disease from which he is suffering and his
limited life expectancy. He was infected in 1984 and was classified
in 1992 as having reached stage III, the last but one stage of
infection (see paragraph 8 above). In short, exceptional expedition
was called for in this instance, notwithstanding the number of cases
which were pending, in particular as the facts of the controversy had
been known to the Government for several years and its seriousness must
have been obvious to them (see the X v. France and Vallée judgments
previously cited, p. 94, para. 47, and p. 19, para. 47, respectively).
Yet the Administrative Court did not use its powers to expedite
the proceedings, although it was aware of the X v. France judgment and
of Mr Karakaya's state of health.
44. In this connection, several periods appear to have been
abnormally long:
(a) the twenty-two months between the application to the
Versailles Administrative Court (23 May 1990) and the first hearing
(8 April 1992) (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above);
(b) the year between the first (22 April 1992) and second
(14 April 1993) interlocutory judgments (see paragraphs 13 and 14
above), even if the second one was necessary, the medical opinion
having shown that Mr Karakaya had been infected at a point in time
lying outside the period of the State's liability;
(c) the four months taken to serve the judgment of
22 April 1992 (see paragraph 13 above); and
(d) the five months taken to serve the judgment of
14 April 1993 (see paragraph 14 above).
45. Referring to its X v. France and Vallée judgments, the Court
reiterates that a period of more than four years to obtain a judgment
in first-instance proceedings far exceeds a reasonable time in a case
of this nature. Such a reasonable time had been exceeded even before
the applicant was paid compensation by the Fund on 1 June 1992 and
18 February 1993 (see paragraph 18 above). After the latter date, what
was at stake in the proceedings, in both pecuniary and non-pecuniary
terms, continued to be of great importance to Mr Karakaya.
In sum, there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1).
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)
46. Under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention,
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a
legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting
Party is completely or partially in conflict with the
obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the
internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation
to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure,
the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just
satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
47. Mr Karakaya claimed, firstly, FRF 350,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, a sum higher than the one awarded by the Court
in the Vallée case in respect of proceedings of identical length
because the national courts had not awarded any compensation.
48. The Government considered that if the Court were to find a
breach of Article 6 (art. 6), it should follow its decision in the
Vallée case and limit the compensation awarded under this head
to FRF 200,000.
49. The Delegate of the Commission agreed in substance with the
Government's opinion.
50. The Court finds that the applicant has undeniably sustained
non-pecuniary damage but it cannot link the amount of compensation
awarded for damage arising from the length of the proceedings to the
outcome of the case in the national courts. Moreover, it notes that
during the proceedings (on 1 June 1992 and 18 February 1993) the
applicant obtained the sum of FRF 1,134,500 from the Compensation Fund.
Taking into account the various relevant factors and making its
assessment on an equitable basis in accordance with Article 50
(art. 50), it awards Mr Karakaya FRF 200,000.
B. Costs and expenses
51. The applicant also claimed FRF 58,114 in respect of costs and
expenses incurred before the Convention institutions.
52. The Government did not contest this claim and the Delegate of
the Commission supported reimbursement.
53. The Court allows the applicant's claim in full.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a breach of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1);
2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months, 200,000 (two hundred thousand) French
francs in respect of damage and 58,114 (fifty-eight thousand
one hundred and fourteen) francs in respect of costs and
expenses;
3. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim.
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public
hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26 August 1994.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Acting Registrar