[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