European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 880/07
by Birthe LUNDQUIST
against Denmark

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Rait Maruste, President,
Peer Lorenzen,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 December 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Birthe Lundquist, is a Danish national who was born in 1935 and lives in Helsinge.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 4 January 1985, being convinced that her physical and mental suffering was caused by polluted water supplied by the water board, and having been granted free legal aid, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the water board before the City Court in Helsinge (Retten i Helsinge), claiming compensation.

At some unknown time the case was referred to the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret).

Various expert statements about the quality of the water were produced, inter alia on 17 October 1989, 4 July 1990, 1 November 1992, 3 June 1997, 30 July and 19 November 1998.

In addition, medical statements about the applicant were submitted, inter alia, from 1984, when the applicant was admitted to hospital, 18 October 1985, and 8 and 24 November 1986.

The Medico-Legal Council replied to questions put by the parties on 12 June 1987.

By judgment of 17 March 2000, the High Court of Eastern Denmark found against the applicant.

Having been granted free legal aid to appeal against the judgment, the applicant brought the case before the Supreme Court (Højesteret), before which medical statements of 15 April and 17 July 1999, 24 March 2000 and 13 September 2001 were submitted. Moreover, on 13 December 2005 the Medico-Legal Council replied to at least sixty-five questions put by the parties.

The hearing lasted from 19 to 23 June 2006 and by a judgment of 30 June 2006, which ran to 25 pages, the Supreme Court confirmed the High Court’s judgment.

The applicant’s request for a reopening was refused by the Supreme Court on 8 October 2007.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement. She also complained about the outcome of the proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in its relevant part reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

The Court has examined the applicant’s complaint as it has been submitted. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the criteria set out in Article 35 § 1 have been complied with and the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Rait Maruste
Registrar President