PAILOT v. FRANCE

• Judgment Date: 22 April 1998
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0422JUD003221796
• Respondent State: France
• Date: 22 April 1998
• Application Number: 32217/96
• Court: Chamber (European Court of Human Rights)
• Applied Rules: 6;6-1;41
• Official Gazette Publication: [object Object]

CASE OF PAILOT v. FRANCE

(93/1997/877/1089)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 April 1998

The present judgment is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998. These reports are obtainable from the publisher Carl Heymanns Verlag KG (Luxemburger Straße 449, D-50939 Köln), who will also arrange for their distribution in association with the agents for certain countries as listed overleaf.

List of Agents

Belgium: Etablissements Emile Bruylant (rue de la Régence 67,

B-1000 Bruxelles)

Luxembourg: Librairie Promoculture (14, rue Duchscher

(place de Paris), B.P. 1142, L-1011 Luxembourg-Gare)

The Netherlands: B.V. Juridische Boekhandel & Antiquariaat

A. Jongbloed & Zoon (Noordeinde 39, NL-2514 GC ’s-Gravenhage)

SUMMARY[1]

Judgment delivered by a Chamber

France – length of compensation proceedings brought by haemophiliac infected with Aids virus following blood transfusions, during which proceedings a friendly settlement was reached before Commission

I.Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

A.Government’s preliminary objection (application inadmissible on account of friendly settlement reached before Commission in connection with an earlier application concerning length of same proceedings)

Friendly settlement concerned only length of proceedings up to date of adoption of report noting that it had been reached.

Conclusion: objection dismissed (unanimously).

B.Merits of the complaint

1. Period to be taken into consideration

Starting-point: day after Commission adopted its report noting that friendly settlement had been reached.

End: delivery of Conseil d’Etat’s judgment.

Total: one year and ten months.

2. Reasonableness of length of proceedings

Complexity of case: case of some complexity, but information needed to determine State’s liability had been available for a long time.

Conduct of the applicant: not responsible for any delay.

Conduct of national authorities: what was at stake in proceedings was of crucial importance for applicant, in view of disease from which he was suffering and called for exceptional diligence, notwithstanding number of cases to be dealt with – period of one year and ten months between adoption of Commission’s report noting that there had been a friendly settlement and Conseil d’Etat’s judgment bringing to an end proceedings that had already lasted five years and six months up to conclusion of that settlement far exceeded reasonable time in such a case.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

II.Article 50 of the Convention

A.Non-pecuniary damage

Claim allowed in part.

B.Costs and expenses

Reimbursed in full.

Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sums (unanimously).

COURT’S CASE-LAW REFERRED TO

26.10.1988, Martins Moreira v. Portugal; 25.2.1992, Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria; 31.3.1992, X v. France; 23.3.1994, Silva Pontes v. Portugal; 26.4.1994, Vallée v. France; 26.8.1994, Karakaya v. France

In the case of Pailot v. France[2],

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court A[3], as a Chamber composed of the following judges:

MrThór Vilhjálmsson, President,

MrL.-E. Pettiti,

MrI. Foighel,

MrR. Pekkanen,

MrL. Wildhaber,

MrB. Repik,

MrP. Jambrek,

MrJ. Casadevall,

MrP. van Dijk,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 28 January and 24 March 1998,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 22 September 1997, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 32217/96) against the French Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25 by a French national, Mr Jean-Marc Pailot, on 2 July 1996.

The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 and to the declaration whereby France recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 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 § 1 of the Convention.

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent him, namely Mr J.-A. Blanc, a lawyer practising in the Conseil d’Etat and the Court of Cassation (Rule 30).

3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr L.-E. Pettiti, the elected judge...