A i drugi protiv Danske

EVROPSKA KOMISIJA ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA

DRUGO ODELJENJE

PREDMET A. I DRUGI protiv DANSKE

(Predstavka br. 20826/92)

IZVEŠTAJ KOMISIJE

usvojen 24. maja 1995.

I. UVOD

1. Sledi pregled spora onako kako je on bio predstavljen Evropskoj komisiji za ljudska prava i pregled postupka vođenog pred Komisijom.

A. Predstavka

2. Svi podnosioci predstavke jesu, ili su bili, danski državljani, okojima će se u daljem tekstu govoriti kao A do G/G1 i K do L. U postupku pred Komisijom podnosioce predstavke zastupaju Dansko udruženje hemofiličara (Danmarks Bloderforening) i g. Tig Trir, advokat sa advokatskom kancelarijom u Kopenhagenu.
3. Predstavka je podneta protiv Kraljevine Danske. Stranu ugovornicu zastupa g. Laurids Mikelsen iz Ministarstva inostranih poslova.
4. Predmet se odnosi na dužinu trajanja postupka rešavanja o zahtevu za naknadu štete koji su podnosioci predstavke istakli protiv Ministarstva zdravlja (Sundhedsministeriet), Nacionalnog odbora za zdravlje (Sundhedsstyrelsen), kompanije Novo-Nordisk Limitid i Nacionalnog instituta za serume (Statens Seruminstitut). Podnosioci predstavke smatraju da spor nije rešen u razumnom vremenskom roku i pozivaju se na član 6, stav 1 Konvencije.

B. Postupak

5. Predstavka je podneta 27. avgusta 1992. godine, a zavedena je 21. oktobra 1992. godine.
6. Šestog aprila 1994. Komisija (Drugo veće) je odlučila da Državu obavesti o prijemu predstavke i da pozove strane da podnesu pisane komentare u pogledu prihvatljivosti i suštine same predstavke.
7. Država je svoje komentare podnela 15. juna 1994. Podnosiocipredstavke su svoje komentare podneli 10. oktobra 1994, pošto je prethodno dva puta bio produžen rok određen u tu svrhu.
8. Tridesetog novembra 1994. godine Komisija je proglasila predstavku prihvatljivom.
9. Tekst odluke Komisije o prihvatljivosti predstavke upućen je obema stranama 14. decembra 1994. godine i one su tom prilikom pozvane da podnesu nove informacije ili komentare u pogledu suštine spora ukoliko to žele. Država je 20. i 30. januara, kao i 20. i 23. februara 1995. godine podnela nove informacije i komentar. Podnosioci predstavke su nove informacije i komentar podneli 20. januara i 20. februara, kao i 10. i 16. marta 1995. godine.
10. Pošto je predstavku proglasila prihvatljivom, Komisija je, u skladu sa članom 28, stav 1 (b) Konvencije, ponudila strankama da im pomogne da postignu prijateljsko poravnanje. Na osnovu toga kako su stranke reagovale, Komisija zaključuje da nema osnova na kojima bi se takvo poravnanje moglo zasnovati.

C. Izveštaj

11. Izveštaj je sačinila Komisija (Drugo veće) u skladu sa članom 31 Konvencije, posle rasprave i glasanja uz prisustvo sledećih članova:

g. H. DANELIUS (DANELIUS), predsednik
g. C. A. NORGARD (NØRGAARD)
gđa G. H. TUNE (THUNE)
g. G. JERUNDSON (JÖRUNDSSON)
g. Z. TREKSEL (TRECHSEL)
g. Dž.-Č. SOJER (SOYER)
g. H. G. ŠERMERS (SCHERMERS)
g. L. LUKAIDES (LOUCAIDES)
g. J.-K. GOJS (GEUS)
g. I. KABRAL BARETO (CABRAL BARRETO)
g. H. MUHA (MUCHA)
g. D. ŠVABI (SVÁBY)

12. Tekst Izveštaja usvojen je 24. maja 1995. godine i upućen jeSavetu ministara Saveta Evrope, u skladu sa članom 31, stav 2 Konvencije.
13. Svrha Izveštaja, u skladu sa članom 31 Konvencije, jeste:

(i)   da se utvrde činjenice, i

(ii)  da se izrazi mišljenje o tome da li utvrđene činjenice ukazuju nato da je Država prekršila svoje obaveze koje ima na osnovu Konvencije.

14. Odluka Komisije o prihvatljivosti predstavke priložena je kaoPrilog I uz ovu presudu.
15. Tekstovi podnesaka stranaka se u celosti, zajedno sa dokumentima koji su priloženi kao dokazni materijal, nalaze u arhivi Komisije.

II. UTVRĐIVANJE ČINJENICA

A. Posebne okolnosti slučaja

a) Podnosioci predstavke

16. A je rođen 1975. godine. Živi u Sent Hedingu i studira poljoprivredu. Inficiran je virusom ljudske imunodeficijencije (HIV) u periodu između 7. jula 1985. i 25. maja 1986. godine.
17. B je rođen 1950. godine i živi u Kverndrupu. Radio je kaomehaničar za elektronske uređaje do 1991. godine, kada mu je omogućeno rano penzionisanje iz zdravstvenih razloga (fortidspension). Zaražen je virusom HIV u periodu između 9. juna 1985. i 10. februara 1986. godine.
18. C je rođen 1958. godine. Zaražen je virusom HIV u perioduizmeđu 1. januara 1978. i 7. juna 1985. godine. Radio je kao mehaničar za elektronske uređaje do zime 1991/92. kada su se pojavili prvi simptomi sindroma stečene imunodeficijencije (AIDS-sida). Tada mu je omogućeno da se penzioniše iz zdravstvenih razloga sa nepotpunim radnim stažom. C je preminuo od side 14. septembra 1993. godine, a njegova udovica je podnosilac predstavke u njegovo ime.
19. D je rođen 1963. godine. Živi u Kopenhagenu. Inficiran jevirusom HIV u periodu između 1. januara 1978. i 27. aprila 1985. godine.
20. E je rođen 1946. godine. Živi u Frederiksbergu. E je inficiranvirusom HIV između 16. januara 1980. i 21. februara 1985. godine. Odlučio je da se povuče iz sudskog postupka u Danskoj 4. novembra 1993. godine.
21. F je rođen 1935. godine. Zaražen je virusom HIV u perioduizmeđu 3. januara 1980. i 6. marta 1985. godine. Prvi simptomi side pojavili su se 1988/89. godine. F je preminuo od side 9. septembra 1992.godine, a njegova udovica je podnosilac predstavke u njegovo ime.
22. G/G1 su roditelji hemofiličara rođenog 1941. godine. Njihov sinje bio inficiran virusom HIV u periodu između 10. maja 1986. i 26. marta 1987. godine. Simptomi side pojavili su u se u junu 1992. godine i sin G/G1 preminuo je od tog oboljenja 9. avgusta 1992. godine.
23. K je udovica hemofiličara koji je rođen 1941. godine. Muž Kzaražen je virusom HIV u periodu između 1. januara 1978. i 12. marta 1985. godine. Od petnaeste godine dobijao je penziju, a utvrđeno je da ima sidu 1987. godine. Muž K preminuo je od side 10. avgusta 1987. godine.
24. L je majka hemofiličara rođenog 1976. godine. Njen sin je zaražen virusom HIV u periodu između 1. januara 1978. i 17. oktobra 1985. godine. Simptomi side pojavili su se 1985. godine i sin L preminuo je od side 27. avgusta 1986. godine.
25. Podnosioci predstavke A do F, sinovi G/G1 i L, kao i muž K često su dobijali transfuzije krvi u danskim bolnicama.

b) Uvod

26. Tokom 1982. godine postalo je poznato da se sida, izmeđuostalog, može preneti krvlju i upotrebom izvesnih krvnih proizvoda. U Danskoj je 1984. formiran takozvani Odbor za krvne proizvode (blodproduktudvalg), a 1985. godine u Odboru se povela rasprava o pregledanju krvi davalaca krvi kako bi se izbeglo korišćenje zaražene krvi. Posle daljih diskusija o ovoj temi Dansko udruženje hemofiličara je u martu 1985. godine zatražilo od ministra unutrašnjih poslova da uvede sistem termičke obrade krvnih proizvoda i pregleda donatorske krvi.
27. Ministar unutrašnjih poslova je 10. septembra 1985. godine zahtevao od Odbora za nacionalno zdravlje da što je pre moguće zakonom ustanovi obavezu termičke obrade krvnih proizvoda i pregled donatorske krvi.
28. Termička obrada postala je obavezna 1. oktobra 1985. godine, apregled donatorske krvi 1. januara 1986. godine. Međutim, u izvesnim okolnostima i dalje je bilo moguće koristiti nepregledane krvne proizvode. Jedanaestog novembra 1987. godine Odbor za nacionalno zdravlje dobio je izveštaj iz Nacionalne univerzitetske bolnice o mogućnosti infekcije virusom HIV putem nepregledanih krvnih proizvoda. Nacionalni odbor za zdravlje je 13. novembra 1987. godine obavestio danske proizvođače krvnih proizvoda da smesta moraju povući sve nepregledane krvne proizvode.
29. U međuvremenu je Dansko udruženje hemofiličara u aprilu1987. godine sačinilo izveštaj u kome je navedeno da je oko 90 hemofiličara zaraženo virusom HIV. Udruženje je zatražilo od Parlamenta (Folketinget) da donese odgovarajući zakon na osnovu koga će se svim na taj način oštećenim licima isplatiti naknada od najmanje 450.000 danskih kruna.
30. U skladu sa uredbom (bekendtgorelse) od 2. septembra 1987. godine ministar unutrašnjih poslova ovlašćen je da dodeli ex gratia naknadu u iznosu od 100.000 danskih kruna (DKK) hemofiličarima koji su postali pozitivni na virus HIV zbog toga što su kroz transfuziju primili zaraženu krv. Dansko udruženje hemofiličara je u pismu koje je 15. oktobra 1987. godine uputilo parlamentarnom Odboru za zdravlje (Folketingets Sundhedsudvalg) kritikovalo ovu meru. Uredbom od 14. juna 1988. ova ex gratia naknada uvećana je na 250.000 DKK i uz to je bilo omogućeno da je dobiju i srodnici u određenom stepenu. Konačno, na osnovu uredbe od 19. novembra 1992. naknada je povećana na 750.000 DKK. Ovaj iznos je bio i biće dodeljivan hemofiličarima za koje se utvrdi da su inficirani virusom HIV pošto su u danskim bolnicama primili krvne proizvode i drugim HIV pozitivnim licima za koje postoji najveća verovatnoća da su inficirani transfuzijama krvi u danskim bolnicama. U izvesnim okolnostima ova ex gratia naknada može se isplatiti naslednicima tih lica. Podnosioci predstavke A do E i K dobili su po 750.000 DKK. F je dobio 250.000 DKK pre no što je 9. septembra 1992. preminuo. Njegova udovica je dobila preostalih 500.000 DKK. Sin podnosilaca predstavke G/G1 dobio je 250.000 DKK pre no što je preminuo 9. avgusta 1992. godine. Budući da on nije imao nijednog naslednika prvog naslednog reda (livsarvinger) preostalih 500.000 DKK nije isplaćeno. Sin podnosioca predstavke L nije uopšte dobio novac budući da je preminuo pre 2. septembra 1987. godine. Ni on nije ostavio decu kao naslednike prvog naslednog reda.
31. Posle rasprave u Parlamentu u vezi sa ex gratia isplatama naknade od Države je zatraženo da preduzme korake kako bi razjasnila okolnosti u vezi sa korišćenjem nepregledanih krvnih proizvoda od trenutka kada je 1. januara 1986. godine zakonski uvedena obaveza pregledanja svih krvnih proizvoda (vidi gore stav 28). Obavljena je sudska istraga i rezultati istrage predstavljeni su javnosti u maju 1988. godine. Na temelju tih nalaza Ministarstvo zdravlja je otvorilo zvaničnu istragu protiv sedam zvaničnika 2. jula 1988, a pokrenut je i krivični postupak protiv jednog proizvođača krvnih proizvoda. Presudom od 29. novembra 1989. godine ovaj proizvođač je oglašen krivim za kršenje Zakona o lekovima i osuđen da plati globu od 15.000 DKK.

c) Građanska parnica

32. Četrnaestog decembra 1987. godine Dansko udruženje hemofiličara povelo je građansku parnicu pred Visokim sudom Istočne Danske (Ostre Landstret) protiv Ministarstva unutrašnjih poslova (kasnije promenjeno u Ministarstvo zdravlja, u daljem tekstu tuženi 1), Nacionalnog odbora za zdravlje (u daljem tekstu tuženi 2), kompanije Novo-Nordisk Limitid (tuženi 3) i Nacionalnog instituta za serume (tuženi 4). Tužene 1, 2 i 4 predstavljao je pravobranilac (kammeradvokaten), dok je tuženi 3 angažovao drugog advokata kao svog zastupnika. U podnesku Danskog udruženja hemofiličara tvrdilo se da se postupanje tuženih prema članovima Udruženja ne može opravdati i da je bilo neodgovorno, jer su doprineli upotrebi proizvoda koji su mogli da sadrže virus HIV, i posle 1. januara 1986. godine. Udruženje je stoga zahtevalo da se tuženima naloži da priznaju kako snose odgovornost za štetu, nanetu zajednički i pojedinačno, svim članovima Udruženja koje ih tuži u čijim su organizmima nađena antitela na HIV posle upotrebe krvnih proizvoda što ih je isporučila kompanija Novo Nordisk Limitid i/ili Nacionalni institut za serume. Ovaj predmet je zaveden u Visokom sudu pod brojem O. L. III nr.364/1987.
33. Na prvom ročištu u ovom predmetu, 18. februara 1988. godine,tuženi su podneli svoje odgovore (svarskrift) u kome su prvenstveno tražili da se odbace zahtevi tužilaca ili da se, alternativno, presudi u njihovu korist. Jedan od razloga na kojima se temeljio zahtev za odbacivanje bio je stav tuženih da Udruženje ne može da deluje u ime svojih članova. Tuženi su smatrali da tužbu treba dopustiti samo ukoliko Udruženje deluje kao punomoćnik svojih članova. Osim toga, tuženi su zahtevali odlaganje procesa do ishoda sudske istrage (vidi gore stav 31), posle čega bi bili u mogućnosti da daju detaljniji odgovor.
34. Sud je odlučio da odloži dalji proces do 7. aprila 1988. godine.Tog dana, 7. aprila, suđenje je ponovo odloženo i novo je zakazano za 5. maj 1988. godine, jer se još uvek čekao ishod sudske istrage čiji je rezultat objavljen u maju 1988. Na narednom ročištu 15. avgusta 1988. godine tuženi nisu izneli nikakve nove komentare, ali su zahtevali da se njihov zahtev za odbacivanje tužbe odvojeno razmotri. Udruženje je zatražilo dozvolu da podnese pisane komentare u vezi sa ovom tačkom i Sud je, u skladu s tim, odložio raspravu do 8. septembra 1988. godine.
35. Na ročištu održanom 8. septembra 1988. godine Udruženje jezatražilo od Suda da odbaci zahtev tuženih za izdvojeno razmatranje zahteva za odbacivanje tužbe. Udruženje je pored toga istaklo da ono sada deluje kao punomoćnik jednog svog člana koji želi da ostane anoniman. Udruženje je takođe naglasilo da i samo Udruženje ima pravni interes, u ime svih svojih članova, za to da Sud donese odluku o tome mogu li tuženi biti smatrani odgovornima u odnosu na one njegove članove koji su posle određenog datuma inficirani virusom HIV. Slučaj je ponovo odložen do 10. novembra 1988. godine, kako bi se tuženima omogućilo da podnesu pisane odgovore u kojima će precizirati svoje stavove.
36. Na narednom ročištu 10. novembra 1988. godine tuženi su ostalipri svome zahtevu za odbacivanje tužbe. Oni su, međutim, izrazili spremnost da iznova razmotre celo pitanje pod uslovom da se Udruženje saglasi da se čitav predmet može tretirati kao predmet koji se tiče jednog člana Udruženja koji je sada konkretno pomenut, pa će moći da se traži naknada za konkretan gubitak koji je on navodno pretrpeo zbog delovanja tuženih. U skladu sa tim zahtevima sud je pozvao stranke da prisustvuju pripremnom ročištu pred sudom, u skladu sa članom 355 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde (retsplejeloven), kako bi sva ta pitanja bila razjašnjena. Ročište je zakazano za 9. februar 1989. godine, ali predstavnik Udruženja nije mogao da mu prisustvuje zbog toga što je bio bolestan tokom decembra 1988. i januara 1989. godine. Drugog marta 1989. godine sud je, u dogovoru sa strankama, odredio da će prethodno ročište u skladu sa članom 355 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde biti održano 18. maja 1989. godine.
37. Tokom rasprave tog dana zastupnik Udruženja je pristao da saUdruženjem i njegovim članovima razmotri da li se mogu identifikovati pojedinačni članovi, kako bi se mogli podneti posebni zahtevi za naknadu štete. Predmet je u tu svrhu odložen do 28. septembra 1989. godine.
38. Dvadeset osmog septembra 1989. Udruženje je zahtevalo odlaganje od osam nedelja. Još nije bilo razjašnjeno pitanje identifikovanja pojedinačnih članova. Sud je udovoljio tom zahtevu i odložio predmet do 23. novembra 1989. godine. Predsedavajući sudija je, međutim, zahtevao da proceduralna pitanja budu rešena, imajući na umu raspravu vođenu 18. maja 1989. godine.
39. Na potonjem zasedanju suda 23. novembra 1989. godine, Udruženje je saopštilo da nastupa kao punomoćnik sedam pojedinačnih članova (podnosioci predstavke A do C i sin G/G1) koji su se pridružili tužbi. U svom pisanom podnesku upućenom istog dana advokat tužilaca je naveo sledeće:

(prevod)

,,U vezi sa ročištem održanim 18. maja 1989. godine na kom su se stranke saglasile da se Dansko udruženje hemofiličara pojavljuje kao punomoćnik onih članova Udruženja koji su inficirani virusom HIV posle 1. januara 1985. godine i da je obezbeđena takva identifikacija tužilaca koja će ipak zaštititi njihov identitet od obelodanjivanja u javnosti, bilo gde osim na sudu, obaveštavam sud da su se sledeći tužioci udružili u ovom predmetu (sledi navođenje imena podnosilaca predstavke A do F i sina G/G1)...‘‘

40. Rasprava je potom odložena do 18. januara 1990. godine kako bise tuženima omogućilo da podnesu svoje konačne odgovore. Dana 18. januara 1990. godine sud je odobrio još jedno odlaganje, do 22. marta 1990.
41. Na ročištu održanom 22. marta 1990. godine tužbi su se pridružila još četvorica tužilaca, uključujući i podnosioce predstavke K i L. Slučaj je još jednom odložen, do 17. maja 1990. godine, do kada je trebalo da stignu konačni odgovori tuženih.
42. Sedamnaestog maja 1990. godine slučaj je odložen do 21. juna1990. godine kako bi tužioci mogli da prouče određene dokumente. Dvadeset prvog juna 1990. tužioci su podneli još 21 dokument, zbog čega je došlo do novog odlaganja, do 23. avgusta 1990. godine, kako bi tuženi mogli da dostave svoje stavove o tim dokumentima. Tog dana je ponovo došlo do odlaganja do 27. septembra 1990. godine, u iščekivanju stavova i komentara tuženih.
43. Na ročištu 27. septembra 1990. godine tužioci su se složili satuženim 3 da treba pribaviti i mišljenje medicinskog veštaka. Osim toga, oni su predočili da će i sami podneti relevantne dokumente u tom smislu. Slučaj je ponovo odložen do 25. oktobra 1990. godine, očigledno zbog toga što se čekalo mišljenje drugih tuženih o ovom pitanju. Dvadeset petog oktobra 1990. godine slučaj je ponovo odložen, do 29. novembra 1990, budući da tuženi 1, 2 i 4 još nisu odgovorili na pitanje u vezi sa pribavljanjem mišljenja medicinskog veštaka.
44. Pitanje je rešeno 29. novembra 1990. godine kada su strankepostigle saglasnost o pribavljanju mišljenja medicinskog veštaka. Predmet je ponovo odložen do 21. februara 1991. godine, da bi tada bio još jednom odložen, do 4. aprila 1991. godine, zbog toga što su tuženi bili u procesu pripreme novih medicinskih dokaza u vezi sa šest novih tužilaca za koje se očekivalo da se pojave.
45. Sud je 4. aprila, 16. maja i 6. juna 1991. godine doneo odlukeo daljim odlaganjima budući da su stranke očigledno još uvek razmatrale proceduralna pitanja u pogledu pribavljanja mišljenja medicinskog veštaka. Osmog avgusta 1991. godine održano je novo pripremno ročište u skladu sa članom 355 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde. Tužioci su izneli predlog u pogledu pribavljanja mišljenja medicinskog veštaka, dok su tuženi 1, 2 i 4 zahtevali novo odlaganje da bi dalje razmatrali ovo pitanje. Predmet je odložen do 12. septembra 1991. godine kada su stranke obavestile sud da su postigle sporazum o proceduralnim pitanjima u pogledu pribavljanja mišljenja medicinskog veštaka. Sud je još jednom odložio suđenje do 7. novembra 1991. godine, kako bi stranke mogle da postupe prema dogovoru. Iz tih razloga predmet je odlagan i 19. decembra 1991. godine, a potom 20. februara, 12. marta i 4. juna 1992. godine.
46. Šestog avgusta 1992. stranke su obavestile Sud da su se saglasile o tome koja lica mogu biti imenovana za veštake, kao i da su postigle dogovor o pitanjima o kojima veštaci treba da iznesu svoje mišljenje. Sud je u skladu s dogovorom stranaka imenovao veštake i odložio je raspravu do 10. decembra 1992. godine, do kad je trebalo da stigne i mišljenje veštaka.
47. Sin podnosilaca predstavke G/G1 preminuo je 9. avgusta 1992. godine. Podnosilac predstavke F preminuo je 9. septembra 1992. Tog dana Visoki sud je obavešten da je podneta predstavka Evropskoj komisiji za ljudska prava u kojoj su se zastupnici tužilaca (u ovoj građanskoj parnici) pozvali na član 6, stav 1 Konvencije u vezi sa dužinom postupka. Osim toga, izgleda da su iskrsli i neki dodatni problemi u vezi sa materijalom koji je trebalo poslati veštacima na procenu.
48. U svetlosti svega ovoga predsedavajući sudija je 13. oktobra1992. godine odlučio da u zapisnik bude uneto sledeće:

(prevod)

,,Predsedavajući sudija je konstatovao da je u pripremnoj fazi parničnog postupka, sve do sada, predmet odlagan svaki put u skladu sa zahtevima koje su zajednički iznosili zastupnici stranaka, s tim što je najnovije odlaganje bilo od 6. avgusta 1992. do 10. decembra 1992, do kada je trebalo da stigne mišljenje medicinskih veštaka.

Predsedavajući sudija je pozvao zastupnike tuženih da što pre dostave odgovor na podnesak (zastupnika tužilaca) od 9. septembra 1992. sudu i zastupnicima (tužilaca) pre 1. novembra 1992.

Predsedavajući sudija dodaje da svi dodatni dokazni predmeti koji bi eventualno mogli biti predočeni veštacima prvo treba da budu predočeni sudu‘‘.

49. Usled svih navedenih događaja, 11. novembra 1992. godineodržan je sastanak ministra zdravlja i predstavnika stranaka; tom prilikom su razmotrene mogućnosti ubrzanja toka celog postupka. Tuženi su tvrdili da, mada je svrha parničnog postupka prema njihovom mišljenju bila naknada štete, tužioci još nisu izneli nikakav konkretan zahtev u tom smislu. Tužioci su tvrdili da svrha ove parnice nije samo naknada štete, već i utvrđivanje odgovornosti za navodne prestupe.
50. Na sledećem ročištu 10. decembra 1992. stranke su se složileda se predmet odloži budući da još nije pribavljeno mišljenje veštaka. Postupak je odložen do 11. februara 1993.
51. Mišljenje medicinskih veštaka pribavljeno je 17. decembra 1992. godine i posle toga su stranke započele diskusiju o postavljanju dodatnih pitanja veštacima. Na ročištu 11. februara 1993. postupak je ponovo odložen do 18. marta 1993, kako bi se strankama omogućilo da iznesu svoje mišljenje.
52. Iz sudskog zapisnika sa ročišta 18. marta 1993. godine vidi seda stranke još nisu postigle dogovor o pribavljanju dodatnih odgovora od medicinskih veštaka. U zapisniku stoji:

(prevod)

,,(Zastupnik tuženih 1, 2 i 4) podsetio je da ministar zdravlja želi da se ovaj postupak okonča što je pre moguće.

Predsedavajući sudija je ponovio ono što je dodatno uneto u sudski zapisnik od 13. oktobra 1992. godine, to jest da je proces u pripremnoj fazi do sada bio odlagan svaki put u skladu sa zahtevima koje su zajednički postavljali zastupnici stranaka i pritom je (on) dodao da su u građanskoj parnici upravo stranke te koje snose odgovornost za brzinu rešavanja spora.

U skladu sa zajedničkim zahtevom stranaka postupak je odložen dok ne bude okončana njihova dalja diskusija o formulisanju dodatnih pitanja koja treba postaviti veštacima, s tim što su se stranke složile da u sadašnjoj fazi nema potrebe za pripremnim ročištem u skladu sa članom 355 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde‘‘.

53. Postupak je odložen do 1. aprila 1993. godine, kada su strankeobavestile sud o dodatnim pitanjima koja treba postaviti medicinskim veštacima. Tada je postupak odložen do 13. maja 1993. godine, do kada je trebalo da stignu dodatna mišljenja veštaka. Tog datuma predmet je odložen do 17. juna 1993. godine, budući da mišljenja veštaka još nisu stigla.
54. Na ročištu održanom 17. juna 1993. godine tužioci su podnelipreliminarni zahtev za naknadu štete u iznosu od po 1.000.000 danskih kruna (DKK) za podnosioce predstavke od A do F i za sina G/G1. Osim toga, za podnosioca predstavke K tražena je naknada štete od 750.000 DKK. Nikakav preliminarni zahtev za naknadu štete nije istaknut u vezi sa podnosiocem predstavke L. Postupak je potom odložen do 2. septembra 1993. godine, budući da dodatno mišljenje veštaka još nije stiglo. Tog dana stranke su se saglasile da zahtevaju novo odlaganje do 4. novembra 1993. godine, budući da mišljenje veštaka još nije stiglo i sud je udovoljio njihovom zahtevu. Prvi deo dodatnog mišljenja veštaka stigao je 9. septembra 1993.
55. Podnosilac predstavke C preminuo je 14. septembra 1993.
56. Drugi deo dodatnog izveštaja veštaka stigao je 22. oktobra 1993.
57. Na narednom ročištu održanom 4. novembra 1993. sedam tužilaca (podnosioci predstavke A do D, F, sin G/G1 i K) izneli su konkretne zahteve za naknadu štete. Podnosilac predstavke L nije zahtevao naknadu štete, a podnosilac predstavke E je saopštio da se povlači iz spora. Tužioci su zahtevali naknadu štete zbog nesposobnosti za rad, invalidnosti, gubitka lica koje ih je izdržavalo i pogrebnih troškova u iznosima koji su bili u vrednosti do 1.090.000 DKK. Tokom dva sudska ročišta održana 16. decembra 1993. i 13. januara 1994. predočeni su novi dokumenti relevantni za pitanje naknade štete. Na zahtev tuženih razmotreno je i da li potraživanja tužilaca treba predstaviti Odboru za povrede na radu (Arbejdsskadestyrelsen) radi procene. Dogovoreno je da se to ipak ne uradi.
58. Na ročištu održanom 3. marta 1994. godine u skladu sa članom355 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde razmotreno je pitanje utvrđivanja datuma za glavnu raspravu. U dogovoru sa strankama Visoki sud je odredio datume za glavnu raspravu od 24. oktobra do 22. novembra 1992. godine. Kasnije je to izmenjeno na zahtev podnosilaca predstavke, tako da je određen vremenski period od 28. novembra 1994. do 17. januara 1995. godine. Dalji postupak je do tada odložen.
59. Glavna rasprava održana je u utvrđenom vremenu. Tužioci kojisu nastavili spor odustali su od svih tužbi protiv Nacionalnog instituta za serume (tuženi 4). Osim toga, podnosioci predstavke B do D, F i L odustali su od tužbi protiv Kompanije Novo-Nordisk Limitid (tuženi 3). Pored tih promena, podnosioci predstavke, sa izuzetkom E koji se povukao iz predmeta, ostali su pri stavu da su se tuženi ponašali nemarno i da su tako izazvali infekciju virusom HIV. Osim toga, tužioci su ostali pri stavu da tuženi treba da naknade štetu. Tužioci su zahtevali naknadu štete u iznosima koji su se kretali od 24.630,24 DKK do 1.090.000 DKK. L nije tražio naknadu štete.
60. Presudom od 14. februara 1995. godine Visoki sud u IstočnojDanskoj odbacio je sve preostale tužbene zahteve protiv kompanije Novo-Nordisk Limitid. Sud je, međutim, zaključio da su se Ministarstvo zdravlja i Nacionalni odbor za zdravlje (tuženi 1 i 2) zaista ponašali nemarno tokom određenog vremenskog perioda, ali je time bio pogođen samo sin G/G1. Shodno tome, odbačeni su svi zahtevi za naplatu štete osim zahteva koji je bio podnet u ime sina G/G1. Taj zahtev za isplatu 24.630,24 DKK smanjen je u skladu s načelom pravičnosti do iznosa od 18.718,24 DKK plus kamata koja je tekla od 17. juna 1993. godine, dakle od datuma kada je prvi put podnet zahtev za naknadu štete (vidi gore stav 54).
61. Posle izricanja presude Visokog suda Istočne Danske Parlamentje raspravljao o političkim posledicama te presude. Ministar zdravlja je 22. februara 1995. godine izdao sledeće saopštenje za štampu:

(prevod)

,,Političke posledice građanske parnice koju su poveli hemofiličari tražeći isplatu novčane naknade.

Danas je ministar zdravlja, gđa Ivona Herlev Andersen završila razgovore sa predstavnicima parlamentarnih stranaka u vezi sa političkim posledicama građanske parnice koju su poveli hemofiličari tražeći da im se isplati naknada štete i rezultat tih razgovora je sledeći:

Parlamentarne stranke i Vlada saosećaju sa hemofiličarima koji su se zarazili virusom HIV i žale zbog teške tragedije koja je pogodila 89 hemofiličara koji su krajem 70-ih godina i tokom narednih nekoliko godina zaraženi virusom HIV preko krvnih preparata, u vreme dok još nije bilo dovoljno znanja o načinu na koji se ta infekcija prenosi, niti su na raspolaganju stajali adekvatni metodi njenog sprečavanja.

Parlamentarne stranke i Vlada priznaju da aranžmani i mere preduzimani tokom 1985. i 1986. godine u nekim svojim tačkama, na osnovu znanja kojim danas raspolažemo, moraju biti okarakterisani kao nedovoljni; i stranke i Vlada izražavaju žaljenje zbog toga.

Parlamentarne stranke i Vlada poštuju činjenicu da je Visoki sud Istočne Danske u svojoj presudi o tužbenom zahtevu za naknadu štete izrazio saglasnost sa vlastima u tom smislu da one nisu postupile nemarno kada nisu tražile termičku obradu krvnih preparata do 1. oktobra 1985. godine, odnosno kada nisu tražile da se detaljno pregleda sva krv davalaca do 1. januara 1986. godine.

Parlamentarne stranke i Vlada smatraju svojom moralnom dužnošću da pokažu veliku fleksibilnost radi postizanja politički prihvatljivog rešenja situacije u vezi sa 89 hemofiličara koji su zaraženi virusom HIV.

Parlamentarne stranke i Vlada smatraju da ukupna naknada koja je do sad data hemofiličarima zaraženim virusom HIV i rođacima koji su ih nasledili predstavlja jasan izraz saosećanja parlamentarnih stranaka prema izuzetno teškoj situaciji u kojoj su se našli svi hemofiličari zaraženi virusom HIV.

U želji da pruže još jedan doprinos humanom rešenju problema, parlamentarne stranke i Vlada saglasne su sa inicijativom da se što je pre mogućno formira fond ukupne vrednosti 20 miliona DKK kojim bi, u određenim okvirima, upravljalo Dansko udruženje hemofiličara. Ova inicijativa ima za cilj da se obezbedi da se na bolji način zadovoljavaju posebne i individualne potrebe hemofiličara -- kako danas, tako i u budućnosti -svakako bolje nego što je to do sada bilo omogućeno isplatom naknade štete. Osim toga, Vlada će čim bude moguće -- zahvaljujući specijalnim zakonskim propisima -- inicirati sistem zdravstvenog osiguranja koji bi trebalo da obuhvati širok spektar lekova i da naknadu štete učini pristupačnijom nego što je prema postojećem Zakonu o odgovornosti proizvođača za štetu nastalu od proizvoda.

Konačno, Vlada će pokrenuti inicijativu da Danskom udruženju hemofiličara ponudi da bude zastupljeno u Odboru za krvne proizvode nacionalnog odbora za zdravlje. Odbor za krvne proizvode, između ostalog, ima zadatak da predlaže mere kojima će se omogućiti najbolje moguće korišćenje krvi davalaca i da obezbedi najviši mogući stepen samodovoljnosti u pogledu krvnih proizvoda.

Ovo saopštenje parlamentarnih stranaka i Vlade danas je dostavljeno i Danskom udruženju hemofiličara‘‘.

62. Petnaestog marta 1995. Dansko udruženje hemofiličara izdalo je sledeće saopštenje za štampu:

(prevod)

,,Uprkos činjenici da Dansko udruženje hemofiličara ne sme odustati od kritike na račun presude Visokog suda Istočne Danske, Odbor ovog udruženja odlučio je da odustane od predloga da se na presudu tog suda uloži žalba Vrhovnom sudu (Hojesteret).

Ova odluka se temelji na saopštenju parlamenta i Vlade od 22. februara 1995. godine, u kome je izraženo žaljenje zbog svih okolnosti na kojima se ovaj predmet zasniva. U isto vreme, najavljen je izvestan broj inicijativa namenjenih hemofiličarima inficiranima virusom HIV i Udruženju, koje će ublažiti neke od posledica celog ovog slučaja za našu grupu, a obećano je i da će biti uspostavljeni neki aranžmani, uključujući tu i novi sistem zdravstvenog osiguranja, koji bi mogli poboljšati položaj pacijenata u budućnosti.

Udruženje pretpostavlja da ova saglasna izjava Parlamenta i Vlade predstavlja istinski neuobičajeni korak koji treba sagledavati upravo u tom svetlu i uz dužnu pažnju prema razlozima i namerama koje su Vlada i Parlament želeli da izraze. Samim tim, Udruženje zaključuje da je ovo saopštenje dovoljna osnova za zahtev da se započeti proces okonča. To je ono što je Udruženje od samog početka istinski želelo, uvereno da je brzo okončanje spora najpoželjnije, kako iz razloga humanosti, tako i zbog nedovoljnih resursa kojima samo Udruženje raspolaže. Zato se Udruženje od početka zalagalo za brzo i časno rešenje ovog problema.

Udruženje ipak želi da naglasi kako bi bilo adekvatnije da je formulacija kojom se izražava javno žaljenje sadržala i neposrednije priznanje činjenice da u periodu od 1984. do 1986. godine nije bilo adekvatnog tretmana rizika od infekcije hemofiličara virusom HIV. Osim toga, bilo bi bolje da su formulacije i saopštenja na bolji način odrazile i presudu Visokog suda, uključujući tu činjenicu da su sudije zaključile kako država u jednom od navedenih slučajeva snosi odgovornost.

Bar tri od osam tužilaca koliko ih je Udruženje zastupalo smatraju da nema osnova za okončanje parničnog postupka i zato su odlučili da ulože žalbu na presudu Vrhovnom sudu, uprkos preporukama Udruženja.

Iako bi Udruženje više volelo da je čitav slučaj mogao već sada da bude okončan, Odbor Udruženja poštuje taj izbor tužilaca, ali usled svega što je ovde rečeno Udruženje više neće delovati kao predstavnik onih hemofiličara koji su odlučili da ipak upute žalbu Vrhovnom sudu.

Udruženje konstatuje da u saopštenju za javnost nije pomenuta predstavka koja je upućena Evropskoj komisiji za ljudska prava u Strazburu i proces koji je na osnovu te predstavke pokrenut, a koji sada miruje, do ishoda ovog postupka. Isto tako, nije izraženo ni žaljenje zbog neopravdano dugog sudskog postupka -- postupka koji je trajao više od sedam godina. Udruženje zaključuje da to i dalje predstavlja povredu ljudskih prava hemofiličara. Zato ostaje pri zahtevu za zaštitu ljudskih prava‘‘.

63. Podnosioci predstavke A, B i K uložili su Vrhovnom sudu žalbu na odluku Visokog suda. Žalbeni postupak još nije okončan. Kada je reč o podnosiocima predstavke C, D, F, G/G1 i L za njih je postupak okončan presudom Visokog suda Istočne Danske 14. februara 1995. godine.

B. Relevantno domaće pravo

64. U građanskim parnicama sud deluje u skladu sa zahtevimastranaka. Građanski postupak započinje jedna od stranaka koja nadležnom sudu podnosi tužbeni zahtev (vidi član 348 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde). Neke parnice, kao što je ova, vode se pred Visokim sudom kao sudom koji je nadležan u prvom stepenu (vidi članove 224 do 226 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde). Smatra se da je parnični postupak započet onog trenutka kada sud dobije tužbeni zahtev. Sud ima obavezu da postupi po tom zahtevu. Postupak se potom deli na dva dela -- pripremna faza i faza glavnog pretresa.
65. Postoje dva vida postupka koji se mogu primeniti u pripremnojfazi. U skladu sa članom 351 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde, priprema predmeta može se odvijati tako što će se stranke pojavljivati na pripremnom ročištu bilo lično, bilo preko svog zastupnika koji je ovlašćen da deluje u njihovo ime. To se naziva usmenom pripremom. U pripremnoj fazi stranke podnose zahteve i odgovore na zahteve na ročištu. U skladu sa članom 352 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde, sud može odlučiti da se pripremna faza odvija bez pojavljivanja stranaka na sudu tokom pripremnog ročišta. To se onda naziva pismenim postupkom pripreme. U slučaju pismene pripreme stranke upućuju svoje zahteve i odgovore sudu koji prima i zavodi sve dokumente i stara se za to da protivna strana dobije primerak svakog podneska.
66. Svrha pripremne faze jeste utvrđivanje činjenica i pravnih pitanjakarakterističnih za dati predmet, kako bi se stvari raspravile na najbolji mogući način i kako bi se utvrdilo oko čega se stranke tačno spore.
67. Pored uobičajenog pripremnog ročišta, u pripremnoj fazi sudmože održati i pripremna ročišta u skladu sa članom 355 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde. Sud može pozvati stranke na takvo pripremno ročište kako bi u dovoljnoj meri razjasnio obim dokaznog materijala i sve sporne tačke na način koji sud smatra najefikasnijim. Na takvim pripremnim ročištima sud takođe može odlučivati o spornim pitanjima između stranaka koja se odnose na pripremu i organizaciju postupka u fazi glavne rasprave.
68. Prema Zakonu o sprovođenju pravde, u građanskoj parnici strankeodređuju suštinu spora, to jest pitanja koja sud treba da razmatra. S druge strane, sud ima konačnu reč kada je u pitanju sudski postupak. Ukoliko dođe do zastoja u postupku potrebno je da postoje opravdani razlozi za takav zastoj. Odgovarajuća odredba člana 345 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde glasi:

(prevod)

,,Sud može odložiti postupak ukoliko zaključi da je to svrsishodno, a takođe i kako bi sačekao neku upravnu ili sudsku odluku koja bi mogla uticati na ishod postupka. Sud će obavestiti stranke u sporu o zastoju u postupku što je pre moguće‘‘.

69. Prema tome, za zastoj u postupku potrebno je da sud utvrdi daje takav korak svrsishodan. Postupak može, na primer, biti zaustavljen da bi stranke u sporu pribavile dokaze koji su od značaja za rešenje spora, da bi se obavili pregovori o prijateljskom poravnanju, da bi pribavile mišljenje veštaka, da bi se razjasnili stavovi stranaka itd. Osim toga, zastoj u postupku će po pravilu biti određen ukoliko jedna od stranaka podnese neki zahtev, kako bi se drugoj strani omogućilo da odgovori na taj zahtev. Uobičajeno je da dođe do takvog zastoja u postupku kada je podneto mišljenje veštaka, što omogućuje strankama da razmotre rezultat mišljenja veštaka i da odluče da li to mišljenje nalaže postavljanje novih pitanja veštaku.
70. U građanskim parnicama stranke su te koje razjašnjavaju predmetspora i sam postupak se odvija kroz jedan vid pregovora među strankama. Stranke odlučuju o pitanjima koja će sud razmatrati i stranke su te koje sudu predstavljaju dokazni materijal. Kao polazište se uzima to što stranke same odlučuju o tome koliko će mnogo ili koliko malo predočiti sudu na razmatranje. Sud se stara za to da postupak neprestano napreduje i da se ne dopusti da predmet bude zanemaren. Sud interveniše u onim situacijama u kojima jedna od stranaka izražava sumnju u pogledu zastoja u postupku, ili onda kada sud smatra da zastoj ne služi nikakvoj racionalnoj svrsi. Završetak pripreme predmeta i utvrđivanje datuma početka glavne rasprave podrazumeva ograničavanje mogućnosti za dostavljanje novih materijala sudu (vidi čl. 357 i 363 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde).
71. Po završetku pripreme predmeta sud je taj koji određuje datumodržavanja prvog ročišta za glavnu raspravu (čl. 356, st. 2 Zakona o sprovođenju pravde). Sud može naći za shodno da u tu svrhu pozove stranke.

III. MIŠLJENJE KOMISIJE

A. Predstavka proglašena prihvatljivom

72. Komisija je proglasila prihvatljivom predstavku koju su podnosioci uputili zbog toga što odluka o njihovom sporu nije doneta u razumnom vremenskom roku.

B. Sporno pitanje

73. Prema tome, jedino sporno pitanje jeste da li je dužina postupka bila takva da je premašila ,,razuman rok‘‘ o kome se govori u članu 6, stav 1 Konvencije.

C. Član 6, stav 1 Konvencije

74. Član 6, stav 1 Konvencije u delu koji je ovde relevantan propisuje:

,,Svako, tokom odlučivanja o njegovim građanskim pravima i obavezama ... ima pravo na pravičnu i javnu raspravu u razumnom roku pred ... sudom‘‘.

75. Nesporno je da se u postupku o kome je ovde reč radi outvrđivanju ,,građanskih prava,‘‘ te on spada u okvire člana 6, stav 1 Konvencije.

1) Period koji se razmatra

76. Podnosioci predstavke smatraju da je period koji treba uzeti urazmatranje započeo onog trenutka kada je Dansko udruženje hemofiličara pokrenulo pitanje isplate naknade štete članovima Udruženja. Podnosioci predstavke takođe ukazuju na memorandum Udruženja iz aprila 1987. godine i pismo Udruženja koje je 15. oktobra 1987. godine upućeno Zdravstvenom odboru parlamenta Danske.
77. Vlada se nije u svojim podnescima osvrnula na ovu konkretnutačku.
78. Komisija je podsetila na svoju odluku o prihvatljivosti predstavkeu kojoj je navedeno da je sudski postupak pred Visokim sudom Istočne Danske započeo 14. decembra 1987. godine i da još uvek traje pred Vrhovnim sudom. Ti postupci, prema tome, već traju sedam godina i pet meseci.
79. Komisija, međutim, konstatuje da u ovaj spor u decembru 1987,u vreme kada je postupak o sporu pokrenut pred Visokim sudom Istočne Danske, nisu bili uključeni podnosioci ove predstavke. Parnicu pred domaćim sudovima pokrenulo je Dansko udruženje hemofiličara, ali su se stvari u međuvremenu, posle opsežnih pregovora među strankama, promenile u tom smislu da je Udruženje postalo punomoćnik jednog broja identifikovanih lica, uključujući tu i podnosioce ove predstavke. U tom smislu Komisija odbacuje argument podnosilaca predstavke da su oni na ovu promenu tužilaca bili primorani bilo odlukama Visokog suda, bilo odlukama tuženih, ili odlukama i jednih i drugih. Komisija nije našla nikakve dokaze koji bi potkrepili taj stav. Prema tome, podnosioci predstavke A do G/G1 uključili su se u ovaj predmet 23. novembra 1989. godine, dok su se podnosioci predstavke K i L uključili u predmet 22. marta 1990. godine.
80. Komisija ne smatra da podnosioci predstavke mogu osnovanoda tvrde kako su žrtve navodnog kršenja člana 6, stav 1 Konvencije usled dužine trajanja postupka pre no što su odlučili da se sami uključe u taj predmet. Mada je ishod građanske parnice koju je pokrenulo samo Udruženje mogao biti od značaja za pravni položaj pojedinačnih članova Udruženja u budućnosti, Komisija ne smatra da je to dovoljno da bi se na osnovu toga zaključilo kako pojedinačni članovi u takvom slučaju mogu da tvrde da su žrtve navodnog kršenja člana 6, stav 1 Konvencije. Na osnovu ove odredbe podnosilac predstavke ima pravo na pravično suđenje o svom sporu u razumnom roku i to samo onda kada se priključio postupku u kome je od Visokog suda traženo da odluči o njegovim građanskim pravima i obavezama (vidi, na primer, br. 11290/84, Dec. 16.7.87, D. R. 53, str. 62).
81. U takvim okolnostima Komisija zaključuje da je vremenski period, čiju opravdanost ona treba da razmatra, započeo 23. novembra 1989. godine kada je reč o podnosiocima predstavke od A do G/G1, odnosno 22. marta 1990. godine, kada je reč o podnosiocima predstavke K i L.
82. Komisija podseća da je u Danskoj još uvek u toku građanskaparnica. Međutim, to se odnosi samo na podnosioce predstavke A, B i K koji su Vrhovnom sudu uložili žalbu na presudu Visokog suda Istočne Danske. Kada je reč o podnosiocu predstavke E, spor između njega i vlasti okončan je 4. novembra 1993. godine, kada je odlučio da se povuče iz parnice. Kada je reč o podnosiocima predstavke C, D, F, G/G1 i L, za njih je građanska parnica okončana 14. februara 1995. godine kada je saopštena presuda Visokog suda:
83. Iz svega ovoga sledi da postoje sledeći periodi koje treba razmotriti u pogledu predstavke devet podnosilaca:

A: 23. novembar 1989. godine -- postupak još uvek u toku, tj. približno pet godina i šest meseci,

B: 23. novembar 1989. godine -- postupak i dalje u toku, tj. približno pet godina i šest meseci,

C: 23. novembar 1989. do 14. februara 1995. godine, tj. približno pet godina i tri meseca,

D: 23. novembar 1989. do 14. februara 1995. godine, tj. približno pet godina i tri meseca,

E: 23. novembar 1989. do 4. novembra 1993. godine, tj. približno četiri godine;

F: 23. novembar 1989. do 14. februara 1995. godine, tj. približno pet godina i tri meseca,

G/G1: 23. novembar 1989. do 14. februara 1995. godine, tj. približno pet godina i tri meseca,

K: 22. mart 1990. -- postupak još uvek u toku, tj. približno pet godina i dva meseca,

L: 22. mart 1990. do 14. februara 1995. godine, tj. približno četiri godine i 11 meseci.

2) Opravdanost dužine postupka

84. Komisija podseća da se opravdanost dužine trajanja postupka,opšte uzev, mora procenjivati na osnovu sledećih kriterijuma: složenost spora, ponašanje stranaka i ponašanje sudske vlasti pred kojom se postupak odvija. Osim toga, moraju biti uzete u obzir i posebne okolnosti nekog slučaja, posebno ono što je interes podnosioca žalbe koji je inače stranka u sporu, koje mogu zahtevati sveobuhvatnu procenu (vidi presudu Evropskog suda za ljudska prava u predmetu Verniljo od 20. februara 1991, Serija A br. 198, str. 12, i presudu u predmetu X. protiv Francuske od 31. marta 1992, Serija A br. 234-C, str. 90, st. 32). Komisija takođe podseća da je u građanskim parnicama ostvarivanje prava na suđenje u razumnom roku nešto što je u neposrednoj vezi sa budnošću i redovnošću u pojavljivanju pred sudom same stranke o kojoj je reč (vidi presudu u predmetu Preto i drugi, Evropski sud za ljudska prava, 8. decembar 1983, Serija A br. 71, str. 14 i nadalje, st. 33 i nadalje). Ipak, ovo načelo ne može osloboditi sud obaveze da vodi računa o tome da postupak napreduje u razumnom roku (presuda u predmetu Martins Moreira od 26. oktobra 1988, Serija A br. 143, str. 17, st. 46).

a) Složenost predmeta

85. U svetlu ovih opštih kriterijuma podnosioci predstavke ističu danjihov predmet jeste u izvesnoj meri složen i da je bilo neophodno pribaviti mišljenje medicinskih veštaka i druge dokaze da bi se omogućilo Visokom sudu da valjano razmotri ceo spor. Oni, međutim, smatraju da je položaj hemofiličara trebalo razjasniti znatno ranije jer bi to pojednostavilo postupak u ovom predmetu.
86. Država smatra da predmet uključuje čitav niz izuzetno teškihpravnih pitanja, kao i da je i sa stanovišta pribavljanja relevantnih dokaza za njegovo razmatranje bilo potrebno dosta vremena.
87. Kada je reč o složenosti predmeta, Komisija podseća da se ovajpredmet odnosi na zahtev za naknadu štete koju su podnosioci pretrpeli zbog toga što su, kako navode, zaraženi prilikom transfuzije krvi i korišćenja krvnih proizvoda u određenom vremenskom periodu, kao i na pitanje odgovornosti države zbog toga što vlasti, navodno, nisu blagovremeno regulisale način upotrebe krvnih proizvoda. Komisija je konstatovala da je bez svake sumnje trebalo odgovoriti na mnoga teška pitanja u vezi sa korišćenjem krvi davalaca. Međutim, čini se da su odgovori na sva ta pitanja bili dati do 13. novembra 1987. godine kada je Nacionalni odbor za zdravlje, na temelju raspoloživih naučnih dokaza, zabranio korišćenje nepregledanih krvnih proizvoda. Osim toga, pitanja u vezi sa korišćenjem nepregledanih krvnih proizvoda pošto je uvedeno obavezno analiziranje krvi bilo je predmet sudske istrage čiji su rezultati objavljeni u maju 1988. godine. S obzirom na sve to Komisija zaključuje da pravna pitanja o kojima se ovde radilo nisu bila posebno teška. Osim toga, iako je utvrđeno da je za pribavljanje dokaza zaista bilo potrebno dosta vremena, Komisija ne smatra da je sam postupak do sada bio posebno složen. Stoga Komisija zaključuje da se složenošću predmeta ne može opravdati vremenski rok koji je predmet ove predstavke.

b) Ponašanje podnosilaca predstavke

88. Podnosioci predstavke priznaju da je u izvesnom broju slučajevazastoj postupka bio izazvan njihovim ponašanjem, ali smatraju da su ti zastoji bili beznačajni u poređenju sa ukupnom dužinom trajanja postupka. Pritom posebno naglašavaju da svako ima zakonsko pravo na pravičnu raspravu u smislu člana 6 Konvencije, što podrazumeva da prema svakome treba da se postupa s poštovanjem i u razumnom roku u okviru sudskog sistema, bez obzira na zahteve za odlaganje postupka ili na protivljenje u odnosu na odlaganja. Oni stoga smatraju da bi zahtevi u vezi sa hitnošću predmeta bili nepotrebni i da činjenica da se oni nisu protivili zahtevima tuženih za odlaganje postupka treba da se sagleda u svetlu ,,esprit collégial‘‘ između advokata u građanskim parnicama.
89. Država smatra da je vremenski period -- toliko dug da to zaslužuje žaljenje -- koji je bio potreban da se pripremi predmet u suštini posledica ponašanja podnosilaca predstavke. Država posebno ukazuje na to da su značajna odlaganja bila prouzrokovana činjenicom da podnosioci predstavke nisu uspevali da predoče relevantne dokaze, niti su do juna 1993. godine izneli zahteve za naknadu štete. Osim toga, Država naglašava da podnosioci predstavke ni u jednom trenutku tokom pripremne faze postupka nisu zahtevali od Visokog suda da ubrza postupak, niti su naglašavali njegovu hitnost.
90. Kada je reč o ponašanju podnosilaca predstavke, Komisija konstatuje da se pojedinačni tužioci, podnosioci predstavke u ovom slučaju, nisu, kako se čini, sami posebno angažovali u postupku o kome je reč. Međutim, iz prakse Komisije i Suda za ljudska prava sledi da oni ipak treba da budu smatrani odgovornima za odlaganja koja su prouzrokovali njihovi zastupnici (vidi, na primer, presudu u predmetu Kapuano od 25. juna 1987, Serija A br. 119, str. 12, st. 28).
91. Kao što je gore već navedeno, Komisija i Sud su uvek isticalida se u građanskim parnicama u kojima se, kao u ovom predmetu, postupak odvija na inicijativu stranaka, opravdanost dužine tog postupka mora procenjivati sa stanovišta revnosti i discipline zainteresovane stranke (vidi gore pomenutu presudu u predmetu Preto i drugi, STAV 33 ET SEQ.). Ono što je potrebno jeste ,,dužna pažnja,‘‘ koju posebno u ovakvim okolnostima treba sagledavati u svetlu onoga što je predstavljalo ili predstavlja neposredni interes pojedinaca o kojima je reč. U tom smislu, Komisija zaključuje da su zastupnici podnosilaca predstavke očigledno ispoljili vrlo malo brige za položaj podnosilaca predstavke. Komisija posebno ukazuje da je od 22. marta 1990. godine, kada su se podnosioci K i L priključili predmetu, bilo potrebno da prođe vreme do 6. avgusta 1992, tj. više od dve godine, pre no što su stranke bile u poziciji da postignu sporazum o imenovanju medicinskih veštaka. Sva odlaganja koja su u tom periodu tražena bila su posledica dogovora između punomoćnika stranaka.
92. Osim toga, zahtevi podnosilaca predstavke za naknadu štete supodneti tek 17. juna 1993. godine, dakle nakon isteka više od tri godine. Imajući na umu situaciju pojedinačnih podnosilaca predstavke, Komisija nije zaključila da su postojale bilo kakve relevantne okolnosti koje bi mogle da opravdaju to odlaganje. Isto tako, nisu iznete nikakve relevantne činjenice koje bi mogle objasniti zbog čega podnosioci predstavke nisu mnogo ranije izneli svoje zahteve, niti na neki drugi način razjasnili svoj stav u ovom pogledu.
93. Komisija stoga zaključuje da podnosioci predstavke snose uizvesnoj meri odgovornost za produžavanje postupka, utoliko što njihovi punomoćnici nisu pokazali ,,dužnu pažnju‘‘.

 c) Ponašanje upravnih i sudskih vlasti

94. Podnosioci predstavke smatraju da razlozi prekomerne dužinepostupka leže kako u ponašanju upravnih vlasti, tako i u ponašanju sudskih vlasti. Kada je reč o upravnim vlastima, podnosioci predstavke posebno ističu da se tim vlastima može zameriti da su dovele do zastoja u postupku time što su se uzdržavale od preuzimanja bilo kakvih značajnijih proceduralnih mera tokom dugih vremenskih perioda i zbog toga što nisu aktivno ubrzale već okasneli postupak time što bi neutralisale taktiku odugovlačenja. Time što nisu pomogle podnosiocima predstavke da pribave dokaze, vlasti su prenebregle svoju obavezu da postupaju revnosno i s dužnom pažnju. Kada je reč o sudskim vlastima, podnosioci predstavke podsećaju na to da su strane ugovornice dužne da organizuju svoje pravosudne sisteme na način koji će njihovim sudovima omogućiti da ispune zahteve koji proističu iz člana 6 i svakome obezbede da u razumnom roku bude doneta konačna odluka. Međutim, Visoki sud Istočne Danske nije postupao s posebnom revnošću, iako je to u ovom slučaju bilo neophodno, niti je iskoristio ovlašćenje koje ima na osnovu Zakona o sprovođenju pravde da ubrza postupak ne bi li obezbedio brzo rešavanje spornih pitanja.
95. Država smatra da, bez obzira na dužinu postupka, u ponašanjuVisokog suda ili danskih vlasti koje su bile stranka u ovom slučaju nije bilo nikakvih nedostataka. Država ističe da, za razliku od drugih pravnih sistema, u danskom pravnom sistemu građansko-pravni postupak nije inkvizitorni. Postupci se odvijaju u skladu sa Zakonom o sprovođenju pravde, a tok postupka gotovo isključivo zavisi od ponašanja (revnosti i discipline) stranaka. Priprema predmeta odvijala se bez perioda neaktivnosti i Država naglašava da postupak nijednom nije odložen bez saglasnosti obeju stranaka. Osim toga, Država smatra da bi, s obzirom na složenost i težinu pitanja, bilo loše da je priprema predmeta bila silom skraćivana. Država takođe naglašava da su danske vlasti koje su učestvovale kao stranka u sporu neprestano zahtevale od podnosilaca predstavke da iznesu zahteve u pogledu odštete i da podnesu relevantne dokaze. Stoga Država smatra da je dužina postupka, opšte uzev, bila razumna i da se sva odlaganja mogu pre svega pripisati složenosti predmeta i ponašanju podnosilaca predstavke.
96. Kada je reč o ponašanju domaćih vlasti, Komisija podseća daje u građanskoj parnici tužbeni zahtev podnet protiv Ministarstva zdravlja, Nacionalnog odbora za zdravlje, Nacionalnog instituta za serume i jedne privatne kompanije. Dok se od svih tužbenih zahteva podnetih protiv Nacionalnog instituta za serume i nekih zahteva podnetih protiv privatne kompanije docnije odustalo (vidi gore stav 59), činjenica je da se odlaganja koja su prouzrokovali Ministarstvo zdravlja i Nacionalni odbor za zdravlje moraju pripisati državi (vidi mutatis mutandis presudu u predmetu Gvinčo od 10. jula 1984, Serija A br. 81, str. 16, st. 38).
97. Komisija smatra da su upravne vlasti dužne, kad god se pojavljuju kao tužena strana u sudskom postupku, da preduzmu sve neophodne mere ne samo da bi poštovale utvrđene vremenske rokove, već i da bi obezbedile da se spor brzo okonča. U ovom slučaju toga nije bilo. Komisija još jednom podseća na žalosno dugi period vremena koji je utrošen na pripremu mišljenja medicinskih veštaka. Stoga Komisija zaključuje da su nacionalne upravne vlasti koje su u ovom slučaju imale ulogu tuženih, takođe doprinele produžavanju postupka.
98. Kada je reč o ponašanju sudskih vlasti, Komisija podseća dadanski pravni sistem u građansko-pravnim predmetima nije inkvizitornog tipa, već da su stranke te koje rasvetljavaju predmet i postupak se zapravo odvija kao pregovor među strankama. Međutim, prema Zakonu o sprovođenju pravde, ipak je sud taj koji obezbeđuje da se parnični postupak odvija i stara se da predmet ne bude zanemaren.
99. U ovom predmetu Komisija zaključuje da je ono što je bilopredmet neposrednog interesa u osporenom postupku bilo od velikog značaja za one podnosioce predstavke koji su bolovali ili boluju od te neizlečive bolesti, posebno u svetlu njihovog skraćenog očekivanog životnog veka. Prema tome, bilo je potrebno da sud pokaže posebnu revnost i ozbiljnost u ovom predmetu i to je njemu samom moralo da bude očigledno.
100. Ipak, čak i posle smrti sina G/G1 i F, u avgustu i septembru1992. godine, i posle podnošenja predstavke Komisiji, kada je potreba za brzim postupkom morala biti potpuno očigledna, sud nije iskoristio svoja ovlašćenja da naloži ubrzanje postupka, već se ograničio na to da istakne kako su sva odlaganja bila izazvana time što je sud izašao u susret zajedničkim zahtevima stranaka. Prema mišljenju Komisije, to nije bilo dovoljno za ispunjenje zahteva izuzetne revnosti i budnosti.
101. Osim toga, Komisija zaključuje da, bez obzira na stavove punomoćnika o datumima utvrđenim za raspravu u ovom predmetu, Sud nije ispoljio onu izuzetnu budnost i revnost koja je bila neophodna u pogledu onih podnosilaca predstavke koji boluju od neizlečive bolesti, kada je u martu 1994. godine zakazao početak glavne rasprave za novembar 1994, dopuštajući na taj način da slučaj miruje još narednih osam meseci.

3. Opšte razmatranje slučaja

102. Komisija zaključuje da nijedna od stranaka u ovom predmetu nije delovala uz neophodnu budnost i revnost, tako da su sve one doprinele odlaganjima i zastojima do kojih je došlo. Prilikom donošenja zaključka u ovakvim okolnostima Komisija mora posebno naglasiti okolnosti slučaja i neposredan interes pojedinačnih podnosilaca predstavke.

a) Podnosioci predstavke A do G/G1

103. Komisija podseća da su podnosioci predstavke A do F i sinG/G1 svi bolovali, ili boluju, od infekcije virusom HIV i da su svi bili živi u trenutku kada su se uključili u parnični postupak. C, F i sin G/G1 preminuli su tokom postupka što jasno svedoči koliko je, u svetlu njihovog položaja, hitnost u ovom predmetu bila neophodna.
104. Komisija smatra da je u takvim okolnostima Visoki sud trebaloda interveniše u skladu sa ovlašćenjima koja ima na osnovu Zakona o sprovođenju pravde, ne bi li obezbedio nužno napredovanje postupka. Pre no što su se podnosioci predstavke priključili ovom predmetu, postupak pred sudom se odvijao već dve godine, tokom kojih su se stranke sporile oko proceduralnih pitanja, što je jasno ukazivalo na to da one nisu bile svesne potrebe za brzim okončanjem spora. Ipak, Visoki sud nije učinio ništa da bi izbegao sporenje među strankama tokom naredne dve godine -- od septembra 1990. do avgusta 1992. godine -- o tome ko će biti imenovan kao medicinski veštak u ovom predmetu; takođe, sud ni u jednom drugom trenutku nije delovao adekvatno kada je postalo jasno da stranke nisu kadre da same to učine. Prema mišljenju Komisije, kada je reč o podnosiocima A do F i sinu G/G1 koji su bolovali ili boluju od infekcije virusom HIV, razumni rok je već prekoračen u trenutku kada je podnosilac E odlučio da se povuče iz predmeta (4. novembra 1993. godine), otprilike četiri godine pošto je postupak započet. S obzirom na specifičnu situaciju ovih tužilaca, Komisija smatra da je Visoki sud trebalo da aktivno obezbedi brzo okončanje postupka, bez obzira na ponašanje stranaka u sporu. Visoki sud je, međutim, propustio to da učini. Usled toga spor između podnosilaca predstavke A do G/G1 i tuženih u ovom predmetu nije rešen u razumnom roku u smislu značenja iz člana 6, stav 1 Konvencije.

ZAKLJUČAK

105. Komisija jednoglasno zaključuje da je prekršen član 6, stav 1 Konvencije u odnosu na podnosioce predstavke A do G/G1.

b) Podnosioci K i L

106. Primenjujući iste kriterijume na podnosioce predstavke K i LKomisija podseća da one nisu inficirane virusom HIV, i da stoga njihova situacija nije uporediva sa položajem drugih podnosilaca predstavke. Suprug K i sin L preminuli su od side 10. avgusta 1987, odnosno 27. avgusta 1986. godine, dakle pre no što je u Danskoj započet postupak i nekoliko godina pre no što su se same K i L uključile u postupak. Koliko god da je to za žaljenje, iz svih činjenica sledi da je interes K i L u trenutku kada su se priključile predmetu bio drugačijeg karaktera, u tom smislu da za njih element brzine nije mogao imati isti onaj značaj kakav je imao za druge podnosioce predstavke.
107. Kao što je već navedeno (st. 41), i K i L su se priključilepredmetu 22. maja 1990. godine i, kada je reč o L, taj period je trajao otprilike četiri godine i 11 meseci. Kada je reč o K postupak je i dalje u toku i on do sada traje već oko pet godina i dva meseca. Komisija podseća na prethodno navedene stavove (90--92) u kojima je naznačeno da su tokom tih perioda sami podnosioci predstavke izazivali odlaganja koja su nepotrebno produžavala ceo postupak. Osim toga, K i L su se složile preko svojih punomoćnika sa svim odlaganjima do kojih je dolazilo u navedenom periodu, pa se stoga one ne mogu pozivati na ponašanje domaćih vlasti, u ovom slučaju tuženih, kao na razlog neopravdane dužine trajanja postupka.
108. Kada je reč o ponašanju sudskih vlasti ovde nije bila nužnaonako izuzetna budnost i revnost koja je bila nužna u slučajevima podnosilaca predstavke A do G/G1. K i L nisu inficirane virusom HIV pa, prema tome, ne postoji opasnost da bi odlaganje moglo dovesti do toga da pitanje koje sud u postupku treba da reši na kraju bude lišeno svake svrhe. Stoga, kada je reč o K i L, Komisija ne smatra da je Visoki sud propustio da ispolji neophodnu budnost.
109. Iz tih razloga, imajući na umu okolnosti u kojima se nalaze Ki L i pre svega njihovo ponašanje tokom postupka o kome je reč, Komisija ne smatra da je prekršen zahtev za razumni rok koji nalaže član 6, stav 1 Konvencije.

ZAKLJUČAK

110. Komisija jednoglasno zaključuje da kada je reč o podnosiocimapredstavke K i L nije prekršen član 6, stav 1 Konvencije.

D. Rekapitulacija

111. Komisija jednoglasno zaključuje da je prekršen član 6, stav 1 Konvencije kada je reč o podnosiocima predstavke A do G/G1 (st. 105).
112. Komisija jednoglasno zaključuje da nije prekršen član 6, stav1 Konvencije kada je reč o podnosiocima predstavke K i L (st. 110).

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 20826/92

A and Others against Denmark

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 24 May 1995)

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.

A.  The application

2. The applicants are, or were, all Danish nationals, in the following referred to as A to G/G1, and K to L. In the proceedings before the Commission the applicants are represented by the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs (Danmarks Bløderforening) and Mr. Tyge Trier, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen.

3. The application is directed against Denmark. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. Laurids Mikaelsen of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

4. The case concerns the length of the proceedings in a liability and compensation dispute between the applicants and the Ministry of Health (Sundhedsministeriet), the National Health Board (Sundhedsstyrelsen), the company Novo-Nordisk Limited and the National Serum Institute (Statens Seruminstitut). The applicants consider that the dispute has not been determined within a reasonable time and invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 27 August 1992 and registered on 21 October 1992.

6. On 6 April 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.

7. The Government's observations were submitted on 15 June 1994. The applicants' observations in reply were submitted on 10 October 1994, following two extensions of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.

8. On 30 November 1994 the Commission declared the application admissible.

9. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 14 December 1994 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.  The Government submitted further information and observations on 20 and 30 January as well as on 20 and 23 February 1995. The applicants submitted further information and observations on 20 January and 20 February as well as on 10 and 16 March 1995.

10. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.

C. The present Report

11. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:. 

H. DANELIUS, President

C.A. NØRGAARD

G.H. THUNE

G. JÖRUNDSSON

S. TRECHSEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

12. The text of this Report was adopted on 24 May 1995 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.

13. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:

      (i)  to establish the facts, and

      (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.

14. The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is attached hereto as Appendix I.

15. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the case

a) The applicants

16. A was born in 1975. He resides at St. Heddinge and studies agriculture. He was infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) between 7 July 1985 and 25 May 1986.

17. B was born in 1950 and resides at Kværndrup. He worked as an electronics mechanic until 1991 when he was granted an early retirement pension (førtidspension). B was infected with the HIV between 9 June 1985 and 10 February 1986.

18. C was born in 1958. He was infected with the HIV between 1 January 1978 and 7 June 1985. C worked as an electronics mechanic until winter 1991/92 when the first signs of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) appeared. He was then granted an early retirement pension. C died of AIDS on 14 September 1993 and his widow pursues the application on his behalf.

19. D was born in 1963. He resides in Copenhagen. He was infected with the HIV between 1 January 1978 and 27 April 1985.

20. E was born in 1946. He resides at Frederiksberg. E was infected with the HIV between 16 January 1980 and 21 February 1985. He decided to withdraw from the court proceedings in Denmark on 4 November 1993.

21. F was born in 1935. He was infected with the HIV between 3 January 1980 and 6 March 1985. The first signs of AIDS appeared in 1988/89. F died of AIDS on 9 September 1992 and his widow pursues the application on his behalf.

22. G/G1 are the parents of a haemophiliac who was born in 1941. Their son was infected with the HIV between 10 May 1986 and 26 March 1987. The AIDS symptoms appeared in June 1992 and G/G1's son died thereof on 9 August 1992.

23. K is the widow of a haemophiliac who was born in 1941. K's husband was infected with the HIV between 1 January 1978 and 12 March 1985. He had received a pension since the age of 15 and AIDS was diagnosed in 1987. K's husband died of AIDS on 10 August 1987.

24. L is the mother of a haemophiliac who was born in 1976. L's sonwas infected with the HIV between 1 January 1978 and 17 October 1985. The AIDS symptoms appeared in 1985 and L's son died thereof on27 August 1986.

25. The applicants A to F, the sons of G/G1 and L as well as K'shusband had frequently received blood transfusions at Danish hospitals.

b) Introduction

26. In 1982 it became known that inter alia AIDS could be transmitted through blood and through the use of certain blood products. In 1984 a so-called Blood Products Committee (blodproduktudvalg) was established in Denmark and in 1985 the question of screening donor blood in order to avoid the use of contaminated blood arose in this Committee. Following further discussions on the topic the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs requested, in March 1985, the Minister of the Interior to introduce heat treatment of blood products and screening of donor blood.

27. On 10 September 1985 the Minister of the Interior requested the National Health Board to introduce, as soon as possible, a general requirement of subjecting blood products to heat treatment as well as screening of donor blood.

28. The requirement of heat treatment took effect as from 1 October 1985 and the donor blood screening as from 1 January 1986. However, in certain circumstances it remained possible to use unscreened blood products. On 11 November 1987 the National Health Board received a report from the National University Hospital concerning the possibility of HIV infections caused by unscreened blood products. On 13 November 1987 the National Health Board informed the Danish producers of blood products that all unscreened blood products were to be withdrawn immediately.

29. In the meantime the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs had drawn up a report of April 1987 from which it appeared that approximately 90 haemophiliacs had been infected with the HIV. The Association accordingly urged Parliament (Folketinget) to adopt legislation allowing for awards of ex gratia compensation in the amount of 450,000 DKK or more.

30. In pursuance of an Executive Order (bekendtgørelse) of 2 September 1987 the Minister of the Interior was authorised to award an ex gratia compensation in the amount of 100,000 DKK to haemophiliacs who had become HIV positive as a result of receiving contaminated blood in transfusions. This measure was criticised by the Association in a letter of 15 October 1987 addressed to the Parliamentary Health Committee (Folketingets Sundhedsudvalg). By Executive Order of 14 June 1988 the ex gratia compensation was increased to 250,000 DKK and could now also be awarded to certain relatives. Finally, by Executive Order of 19 November 1992 the award was increased to 750,000 DKK. This amount has been, and will be, granted to haemophiliacs found to be infected with HIV following treatment with blood products at Danish hospitals and to other HIV positive persons who have in all probability been infected through blood transfusions at Danish hospitals. In certain circumstances the ex gratia compensation will go to those persons' heirs. The applicants A to E and K have received the 750,000 DKK. F received 250,000 DKK before he died on 9 September 1992. His widow has received the remaining 500,000 DKK. The son of the applicants G/G1 received 250,000 DKK before he died on 9 August 1992. As he did not have any principal heirs (livsarvinger) the remaining 500,000 DKK have not been paid out. The son of the applicant L did not receive any money as he died before 2 September 1987. He left no principal heirs.

31. Following the discussions in Parliament concerning the above ex gratia payments the Government was requested to take steps in order to clarify the circumstances related to the use of unscreened blood products after screening had been introduced on 1 January 1986 (cf. para. 28 above). A judicial inquiry was carried out and its findings were presented in May 1988. On the basis of these findings the Ministry of Health opened an official inquiry, in July 1988, against seven officials and criminal proceedings were instituted against a producer of blood products. By judgment of 29 November 1989 this producer was found guilty of a violation of the Medical Drugs Act and fined 15,000 DKK.

c) The civil court proceedings

32. On 14 December 1987 the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs instituted proceedings in the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret) against the Ministry of the Interior (later changed to the Ministry of Health, defendant 1), the National Health Board (defendant 2), the company Novo-Nordisk Limited (defendant 3) and the National Serum Institute (defendant 4). The defendants 1, 2 and 4 were represented by the Government Solicitor (kammeradvokaten) whereas defendant 3 retained another practising lawyer as counsel. In the Association's writ it was alleged that the defendants had acted in an unjustifiable and irresponsible manner towards the Association's members by having contributed to the use of products, which might have contained the AIDS virus, after 1 January 1986. The Association therefore claimed that the defendants be ordered to acknowledge that they were liable in damages, jointly and severally, to those of the suing Association's members in whom antibodies containing HIV had been found following the use of blood products supplied by the company Novo-Nordisk Limited and/or the National Serum Institute. The case was registered in the High Court under file no. Ø.L. III nr. 364/1987.

33. At the first court session in the case, on 18 February 1988, the defendants submitted their replies (svarskrift) claiming primarily dismissal of the plaintiff's claims and alternatively judgment in their favour. One of the grounds on which the claim for dismissal was based was that the Association could not, in the defendants' view, act on behalf of its members. They maintained that the action should only be allowed if the Association acted as representative (mandatar) for its members. Furthermore, the defendants requested an adjournment of the case pending the outcome of the judicial inquiry mentioned above (para. 31), following which they would be in a position to submit a more detailed reply.

34. The Court decided to adjourn the case until 7 April 1988. Further adjournments were granted on that date and on 5 May 1988, still awaiting the outcome of the judicial inquiry the result of which became available in May 1988. At the following court session on 15 August 1988 the defendants did not submit further observations but requested that their claim for dismissal be heard separately. The Association requested permission to submit written observations on this point and the Court accordingly adjourned the case until 8 September 1988.

35. At the court session on 8 September 1988 the Association requested the Court to reject the defendants' request to examine their claim of dismissal of the case separately. The Association further stated that it was now acting as representative (mandatar) of a member who wished to remain anonymous. The Association also maintained that it had an independent legal interest, on behalf of all its members, in obtaining the Court's decision on whether or not the defendants could be held liable vis-à-vis those of its members who had become HIV infected after a certain date. The case was adjourned until 10 November 1988 in order to allow the defendants to submit written observations in reply.

36. At the following court session on 10 November 1988 the defendants maintained their claim for dismissal. They were, however, willing to reconsider the matter provided the Association agreed that the case could be regarded as concerning the member of the Association who had now been mentioned and, thus, a specific loss allegedly caused by acts of the defendants on the basis of which damages would be claimed. In accordance with their requests the Court called the parties to a preliminary court hearing pursuant to section 355 of the Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven) in order to have the above matters clarified. The hearing was fixed for 9 February 1989 but owing to illness in December 1988 and January 1989 the Association's representative was unable to attend. On 2 March 1989 the Court fixed, in consultation with the parties, 18 May 1989 for the preliminary hearing pursuant to section 355 of the Administration of Justice Act.

37. During the court session on that day counsel for the Association agreed to discuss with the Association and its members whether or not individual members could be identified and thus specific claims for damages made. The case was adjourned until 28 September 1989 for that purpose.

38. On 28 September 1989 the Association requested an eight week adjournment. The above issue of identifying individual members had not yet been clarified. The Court complied and adjourned the case until 23 November 1989. With reference to the discussions during the court session of 18 May 1989 the presiding judge requested, however, that the formality questions be settled.

39. At the subsequent court hearing on 23 November 1989 the Association submitted that it acted as representative (mandatar) of seven individuals (the applicants A to F and the son of G/G1) who had now joined the case. In his written submissions of the same day counsel for the plaintiffs stated as follows: (translation)

"With reference to the court session of 18 May 1989 during which the parties agreed that the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs appears as representative (mandatar) for those members of the Association who have become infected with HIV after 1 January 1985 and that such identification of the plaintiffs is provided which will nevertheless protect their identity from being made public to other than the Court, I hereby submit that the following plaintiffs have joined the case (followed by the mentioning of the applicants A to F and the son of G/G1) ..."

40. The case was then adjourned until 18 January 1990 in order to allow the defendants to submit their final replies. A further adjournment, until 22 March 1990, was granted by the Court on18 January 1990.

41. At the court session on 22 March 1990 an additional four plaintiffs joined the case, including the applicants K and L. The case was adjourned once more, until 17 May 1990, pending the submission of the defendants' final replies.

42. On 17 May 1990 the case was adjourned until 21 June 1990 in order to allow the plaintiffs to examine certain documents. On 21 June 1990 the plaintiffs submitted another 21 documents for which reason the case was adjourned again, until 23 August 1990, pending the defendants' observations thereon. On that day the case was adjourned until 27 September 1990 still pending the defendants' observations.

43. During the court hearing on 27 September 1990 the plaintiffs expressed their agreement with the defendant 3 that a medical expert opinion ought to be obtained. They furthermore submitted that they would present relevant documents in this respect. The case was then adjourned until 25 October 1990 apparently awaiting the other defendants' view on this question. On 25 October 1990 the case was adjourned again until 29 November 1990 as the defendants 1, 2 and 4 had still not replied to the question of obtaining a medical expert opinion.

44. This issue was solved on 29 November 1990 when the parties reached agreement on obtaining a medical expert opinion. The case was adjourned until 21 February 1991 when another adjournment, until 4 April 1991, was decided as the plaintiffs were in the process of preparing further medical evidence in respect of six additional prospective plaintiffs.

45. On 4 April, 16 May and 6 June 1991 the Court decided on further adjournments as the parties apparently still discussed questions of procedure in obtaining a medical expert opinion. On 8 August 1991 a new preliminary court hearing pursuant to section 355 of the Administration of Justice Act was held. The plaintiffs submitted their proposals in respect of obtaining a medical expert opinion whereas the defendants 1, 2 and 4 requested an adjournment to consider the matter further. The case was adjourned until 12 September 1991 when the parties informed the Court that they had now reached agreement on the procedural aspects of obtaining a medical expert opinion. The Court adjourned the case, until 7 November 1991, in order to allow the parties to proceed as agreed. Further adjournments for this reason were decided on 19 December 1991, 20 February, 12 March and 4 June 1992.

46. On 6 August 1992 the parties informed the Court that they had agreed on who could be appointed as experts and also on the issues upon which the experts were supposed to express themselves. The Court then appointed the experts as requested and adjourned the case, until 10 December 1992, pending the submission of the expert opinion.

47. On 9 August 1992 the son of the applicants G/G1 died. The applicant F died on 9 September 1992. On that day the High Court was informed that an application had been lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights in which the plaintiffs' representatives invoked Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention referring to the length of the proceedings. Further, it appears that certain additional problems arose in respect of the material which should be sent to the appointed experts for evaluation.

48. In the light of this the presiding judge decided, on 13 October 1992, to add to the records as follows:

 (translation)

"The presiding judge noted that during the preparatory stage up till now the case has been adjourned each time in     accordance with the requests made jointly by the parties' counsels, the most recent adjournment being from 6 August 1992 until 10 December 1992 pending the submission of the experts' report. The presiding judge urged the defendants' counsels to submit their reply to (the plaintiffs' counsel's) submission of 9 September 1992 to the Court and counsel (for the plaintiffs) before 1 November 1992.

The presiding judge added that any additional exhibits which were to be presented to the experts, should first be presented in court."

49. The above developments resulted in a meeting, on 11 November 1992, between the Minister of Health and the parties' representatives during which the possibilities of accelerating the case were considered. The defendants argued in particular that, although the purpose of the lawsuit in their opinion was to obtain damages, the plaintiffs had not yet presented any specific claim in this respect. The plaintiffs argued that the purpose of the lawsuit was not only to secure damages but also to place liability for the alleged wrongdoings.

50. During the following court session on 10 December 1992 the parties agreed to adjourn the case as the expert opinion was not yet available. The Court adjourned the case until 11 February 1993.

51. The experts' opinion became available on 17 December 1992 following which the parties commenced discussions on putting supplementary questions to the experts. At the court session on 11 February 1993 the case was adjourned until 18 March 1993 in order to allow the parties to state their views thereon.

52. From the court transcript of 18 March 1993 it appears that the parties had still not reached agreement on the question of obtaining further replies from the experts. The transcript reads as follows:

(translation)

"(Counsel for the defendants 1, 2 and 4) remarked that the Minister of Health wishes this case pursued as quickly as possible.

The presiding judge repeated what was added to the court transcripts of 13 October 1992, i.e. that during the preparatory stage up till now the case has been adjourned each time in accordance with the requests made jointly by the parties' counsels and (he) added that in civil proceedings it is firstly the responsibility of the parties to pursue the case.

In accordance with (the parties') joint request the case was adjourned pending the outcome of their continuing discussion on the formulation of additional questions to be put to the experts, the parties agreeing that at present there was no need for a preliminary court hearing pursuant to section 355 of the Administration of Justice Act."

53. The case was adjourned until 1 April 1993 on which date the parties informed the Court of the supplementary questions to be put to the experts. The case was then adjourned until 13 May 1993 pending the experts' supplementary opinion. On that date the case was adjourned until 17 June 1993 as the expert opinion was not yet available.

54. During the court session on 17 June 1993 the plaintiffs submitted a preliminary request for damages in the amount of 1,000,000 DKK in respect of the applicants A to F and in respect of G/G1's son. Furthermore, a claim of 750,000 DKK was made in respect of the applicant K. No preliminary claim for damages was made for the applicant L. The case was hereafter adjourned until 2 September 1993 as the supplementary expert opinion was not yet available. On that date the parties agreed to request another adjournment until 4 November 1993, which the Court granted, as the expert opinion was still not available. Part I of the experts' supplementary report became available on 9 September 1993.

55. On 14 September 1993 the applicant C died.

56. Part II of the experts' supplementary report became available on 22 October 1993.

57. During the following court session held on 4 November 1993 specific claims for compensation were presented by seven plaintiffs (the applicants A to D, F, G/G1's son and K). The applicant L did not claim damages and the applicant E announced that he withdrew from the case. The plaintiffs claimed damages in respect of incapacity of work, medical invalidity, loss of supporter and funeral costs in amounts up to 1,090,000 DKK. During two court sessions held on 16 December 1993 and 13 January 1994 further documents relevant to the question of damages were produced. At the request of the defendants it was also discussed whether or not to present the plaintiffs' claims to the Industrial Injury Board (Arbejdsskadestyrelsen) for evaluation. It was agreed, however, not to pursue this any further.

58. During a court session on 3 March 1994 pursuant to section 355 of the Administration of Justice Act the question of fixing the dates for themain hearing was discussed. In consultation with the parties the High Court fixed the dates for the main hearing to be 24 October until 22 November 1994. This was subsequently changed at the request of the applicants to 28 November 1994 until 17 January 1995. The case was adjourned until then.

59. The main hearing took place on the dates fixed. The remaining plaintiffs dropped all claims against the National Serum Institute (defendant 4). Furthermore, the applicants B to D, F and L dropped all claims against the company Novo-Nordisk Limited (defendant 3). With these changes the applicants, except E who had withdrawn from the case, maintained that the defendants had acted negligently and thereby caused the HIV infections. The plaintiffs furthermore claimed that the defendants were liable to pay damages. In respect of the latter the applicants maintained their claims in amounts from 24,630.24 DKK to 1,090,000 DKK. L did not claim damages.

60. By judgment of 14 February 1995 the High Court of Eastern Denmark rejected all remaining claims directed against the company Novo-Nordisk Limited. The Court concluded, however, that the Ministry of Health and the National Health Board (defendants 1 and 2) had acted negligently in respect of a certain period of time but that only G/G1's son had been affected thereby. Accordingly, all claims for damages were rejected except the claim presented on behalf of G/G1's son. This claim in the amount of 24,630.24 DKK was reduced on an equitable basis to 18,718.24 DKK plus interest as from 17 June 1993, i.e. from the date the request for compensation was first submitted (cf. para. 54).

61. Following the above judgment of the High Court of Eastern Denmark Parliament discussed its political consequences. On 22 February 1995 the Minister of Health issued the following press release:

(translation)

“The political consequences of the haemophiliacs' action for compensation

Today the Minister for Health, Mrs. Yvonne Herløv Andersen concluded her negotiations with representatives of the Parties of the Parliament regarding the political consequences of the haemophiliacs' action for compensation and hereby declares as follows:

The Parties of the Parliament and the Government sympathise with the HIV-infected haemophiliacs and regret the profound tragedy that 89 haemophiliacs at the end of the 1970's and in the following years were infected with HIV via their factor preparations before sufficient knowledge and useful methods of stopping the transmission of the infection were available.

The Parties of the Parliament and the Government acknowledge and regret that arrangements and measures were taken in 1985 and 1986 which - based on the knowledge available today - on some points must be characterised as insufficient.

The Parties of the Parliament and the Government respect that the High Court of Eastern Denmark in its judgment concerning the claim for compensation concurs with the authorities that they did not act negligently by not demanding heat treatment of the factor preparations until 1 October 1985, and by not demanding screening of all donor blood until 1 January 1986.

The Parties of the Parliament and the Government consider it their moral duty to show great flexibility in order to reach a politically acceptable solution to the situation of the 89 HIV-infected haemophiliacs.

The Parties of the Parliament and the Government are of the opinion that the total indemnification already given to the HIV-infected haemophiliacs and their surviving relatives is a clear manifestation of the sympathy which the Parties of the Parliament have for the particularly difficult situation of all the HIV-infected haemophiliacs.

As a further contribution to a human solution, the Parties of the Parliament and the Government agree to the initiative to create as soon as possible a fund with a total amount of DKK 20 million which, within a certain framework, is to be administered by the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs. This is done in order to ensure that the special and individual needs of the haemophiliacs - now and in the years to come - can be better met than has been the case with the compensation paid so far. Furthermore, the Government will initiate as soon as possible - through special legislation - a medicine insurance scheme to cover the medical drugs in broad terms, and to ensure easier access to compensation than provided by the Act on Product Liability. Finally, the Government will take the initiative to offer the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs representation in the Blood Product Committee of the National Health Board. The Blood Product Committee is entrusted inter alia with the task of proposing measures to ensure the best possible use of donor blood and to ensure to the greatest possible extent self-sufficiency in products deriving therefrom.

This declaration from the Parties of the Parliament and the Government was delivered today to the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs."

62. On 15 March 1995 the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs issued the following press release:

  (translation)

"Regardless of the fact that the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs must maintain its criticism of the judgment of the High Court of Eastern Denmark, its Board has decided that it can no longer recommend that the judgment is appealed against to the Supreme Court (Højesteret). This is based on Parliament's and the Government's statement of 22 February 1995 where the circumstances on which the case is based are regretted. At the same time a number of initiatives are presented to the HIV infected haemophiliacs and the Association which will ease some of the consequences this case has had for the group, and a promise is made to make arrangements, including a medicine insurance scheme, which could improve the patients' position in the future.

The Association presumes that this statement made by a unanimous Parliament and the Government is quite an extraordinary step which should be seen as such and with due respect for the considerations and intentions Parliament and the Government wanted to express. Therefore, the Association finds that this statement is a sufficient basis for a request to let the case come to an end. This has been a great wish of the Association which finds that human considerations as well as the Association's resources for a long time have preferred a quick and honourable solution to the case.

Nevertheless, the Association wishes to state that it would have been more appropriate if the formulation of the public regret had expressed a more unreserved recognition to the effect that the haemophiliacs' risk of HIV infection was not dealt with adequately in 1984-86. Furthermore, it would have been preferable if the formulations had reflected the High Court's judgment in a better way, including the fact that the judges concluded that the State is found liable in one of the cases. At least three of the eight plaintiffs whom the Association has represented find that there is no basis for letting the case come to an end and have therefore decided, regardless of the Association's recommendations, to appeal against the judgment.

Although the Association would have preferred that the case could have been brought to a final conclusion the Association's Board respects this choice, but as a consequence of the above the Association will no longer act as representative for those of the haemophiliacs who choose to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Association notes that the case pending before the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg is not mentioned in the public statement. Accordingly, no regrets have been expressed in respect of the unreasonably lengthy court proceedings - proceedings which have lasted more than seven years. The Association finds that there is still a violation of the haemophiliacs' human rights. Therefore the human rights case is maintained."

63. The applicants A, B and K have appealed against the High Court's judgment to the Supreme Court. This case is at present pending there. As regards the applicants C, D, F, G/G1 and L the case ended with the judgment of the High Court of Eastern Denmark on 14 February 1995.

B. Relevant domestic law

64. In civil lawsuits the court acts at the request of the parties. Civil proceedings are instituted by one of the parties submitting a writ of summons to the court concerned (cf. section 348 of the Administration of Justice Act). Certain lawsuits, like the present one, are brought before the High Court as the court of first instance (cf. sections 224 to 226 of the Administration of Justice Act). Legal proceedings are considered to be instituted when the court receives the writ of summons. The court is responsible for the service of the writ of summons. The lawsuit then falls into two parts - a preparatory phase and a hearing phase.

65. Two procedures may be followed in respect of the preparation. Pursuant to section 351 of the Administration of Justice Act, the preparation of a case may be carried out by the parties appearing at preliminary hearings either personally or through a representative entitled to appear for the person concerned. This is called oral preparation. Pleadings are exchanged and formally submitted to the court during a session. Pursuant to section 352 of the Administration of Justice Act the court may decide that the case is to be prepared without the parties appearing in court at preliminary hearings. This is called written preparation. In the case of written preparation the parties forward their pleadings to the court which records the documents and sees to it that the opponent receives a copy of them.

66. The purpose of preparing a case is to establish the facts and the legal issues of the case, to make sure that the case is elucidated in the best possible way, and to establish what the parties disagree on.

67. In addition to the normal preparatory court hearings during the preparation phase the court may hold preliminary hearings pursuant to section 355 of the Administration of Justice Act. The court may summon the parties to such preliminary hearings for the purpose of gaining sufficient clarity of the extent of the evidence and the points at issue when the court finds this expedient. During such preliminary hearings, the court may also decide on disputes between the parties relating to the preparation and actual organisation of the case.

68. According to the Administration of Justice Act, the parties in a civil lawsuit have competence as regards the substance of the case, i.e. the problems to be considered by the court. On the other hand the court has the final competence as regards the judicial procedure. A stay of proceedings requires that there are reasonable grounds for such a stay. The relevant provision in section 345 of the Administration of Justice Act reads as follows:

 (translation)

"The court may adjourn proceedings, if this is found expedient, also in order to await an administrative or legal decision which may influence the outcome of the case. The court shall notify all parties concerned regarding the stay of proceedings as soon as possible."

69. Accordingly, a stay of proceedings requires that the court finds such a step expedient. Proceedings may for instance be stayed in order for the parties to produce evidence of relevance to the case, to conduct friendly settlement negotiations, to procure expert opinions, to clarify the positions of the parties etc. Moreover, proceedings will normally be adjourned if one of the parties submits a pleading in order to allow the other party to comment on it. Proceedings will usually also be adjourned when an expert opinion has been submitted, enabling the parties to review the result and decide whether the expert opinion necessitates further questions to the expert.

70. In civil lawsuits the case is elucidated by the parties and takes the form of a negotiation between them. The parties decide the questions to be considered by the court, and it is the parties who present the material to the court. As a starting point, the parties thus decide themselves how much or how little the court is to be presented with and consider. The court ensures that continuous progress is made in the case, and that the case is not allowed to be neglected. The court intervenes in situations where one of the parties professes misgivings concerning a stay of proceedings, or when the court feels that a stay does not serve any real purpose. Finalising the preparation of the case and fixing it for hearing involve a restriction on the new material to be presented by a party, cf. section 357 and section 363 of the Administration of Justice Act.

71. Following the finalisation of the preparation of the case it is for the court to fix the date for the hearing of the case, cf. section 356, subsection 2, of the Administration of Justice Act. The court may if necessary summon the parties for this purpose.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

72. The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaint that their case has not been determined within a reasonable time.

B. Point at issue

73. Accordingly, the only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

74. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal."

75. It is undisputed that the proceedings in question involve a determination of a "civil right" and thus fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

1) Period to be taken into consideration

76. The applicants maintain their view that the period to be taken into consideration began when the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs raised the issue of awarding compensation to its members. They also refer to a memorandum issued by the Association in April 1987 and the Association's letter of 15 October 1987 addressed to the Parliamentary Health Committee.

77. The Government have not submitted further observations on this particular point.

78. The Commission recalls from its decision on the admissibility of the application that the court proceedings in the High Court of Eastern Denmark commenced on 14 December 1987 and are at present still pending in the Supreme Court. These proceedings have thus already lasted seven years and five months.

79. However, the Commission notes that the case did not at its commencement in the High Court of Eastern Denmark in December 1987 involve any of the applicants of the present case. The domestic lawsuit was brought by the Danish Association of Haemophiliacs but changed, following extensive negotiations between the parties, to the effect that the Association was acting as representative (mandatar) for a number of identified persons, including the applicants. In this respect the Commission rejects the argument advanced by the applicants that this change of plaintiffs was forced upon them either by the High Court or by the defendants or both. The Commission has not found any evidence which could support this view. Thus, the applicants A to G/G1, joined the case on 23 November 1989 and the applicants K and L joined it on 22 March 1990.

80. The Commission does not consider that the applicants could arguably claim to be victims of an alleged violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention due to the length of the proceedings before they had decided to join these proceedings themselves. Although the outcome of a civil suit brought by the Association alone might have been of importance to the individual members' legal position in the future, the Commission does not consider this to be sufficient to find that the individual members in such a case could claim to be victims of an alleged violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of such proceedings. Under this provision an applicant is entitled to a fair hearing of his case within a reasonable time and it was only when the applicants joined the proceedings that the High Court was called upon to determine their civil rights and obligations (cf. for example No. 11290/84, Dec. 16.7.87, D.R. 53 p. 62).

81. In these circumstances the Commission finds that the period of time, the reasonableness of which is to be examined by the Commission commenced on 23 November 1989 as far as the applicants A to G/G1 are concerned and on 22 March 1990 as far as K and L are concerned.

82. The Commission notes that the civil case is still pending in Denmark. However, this is so only in respect of the applicants A, B and K who have appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Eastern Denmark to the Supreme Court. As far as the applicant E is concerned the dispute between him and the authorities involved came to an end on 4 November 1993 when he decided to withdraw from the case. As far as the applicants C, D, F, G/G1 and L are concerned the proceedings ended on 14 February 1995 when the High Court judgment was pronounced.

83. It follows that the periods to be assessed in respect of the nine applicants are as follows:

A:     23 November 1989 - still pending, i.e. approximately five years and six months,

B:     23 November 1989 - still pending, i.e. approximately five years and six months,

C:     23 November 1989 until 14 February 1995, i.e. approximately five years and three months,

D:     23 November 1989 until 14 February 1995, i.e. approximately five years and three months,

E:     23 November 1989 until 4 November 1993, i.e. approximately four years,

F:     23 November 1989 until 14 February 1995, i.e. approximately five years and three months,

G/G1:  23 November 1989 until 14 February 1995, i.e. approximately five years and three months,

K:     22 March 1990 - still pending, i.e. approximately five years and two months,

L:     22 March 1990 until 14 February 1995, i.e. approximately four years and eleven months.

2) The reasonableness of the length of the proceedings

84. From a general point of view the Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and that of the authorities before which the case is brought. Furthermore, the special circumstances of the case, in particular what is at stake for the applicant in the litigation, must be taken into account and may call for an overall assessment (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30 and X v. France judgment of 31 March 1992, Series A no. 234-C, p. 90, para. 32). The Commission also recalls that in civil cases the exercise of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time is subject to diligence being shown by the party concerned (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Pretto and Others judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, pp. 14 et seq., paras. 33 et seq.). Nonetheless this principle cannot absolve the courts from securing that the case progresses within a reasonable time (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Martins Moreira judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 143, p. 17, para. 46).

a) Complexity of the case

 85. In the light of these general criteria the applicants submit that the case was of some complexity as it was necessary to produce medical expert opinions and other evidence in order to allow the High Court to assess the case properly. They maintain, however, that the factual situation of the haemophiliacs ought to have been clarified much earlier which would have simplified the proceedings of this case.

86. The Government submit that the case involved a number of difficult legal questions and was time-consuming also from the point of view of producing relevant documentary evidence.

87. As to its complexity the Commission recalls that the case concerns an action for damages brought by the applicants in respect of the prejudice they allegedly suffered as a result of blood transfusions received, or the use of particular blood products, during a particular period of time, and also the question of liability of the State on account of the allegedly culpable delay of the authorities in regulating the administration of blood products. The Commission notes that there were undoubtedly difficult questions to answer in respect of the use of donor blood. However, these questions appear to have been answered by 13 November 1987 when the National Health Board, based on the scientific material available, prohibited the use of unscreened blood products. Furthermore, the questions relating to the use of unscreened blood products after screening had been introduced was the subject of a judicial inquiry, the findings of which were available in May 1988. Having regard to this the Commission finds that the legal questions involved did not appear to have been particularly difficult. Furthermore, although it has been established that the production of evidence turned out to be time-consuming the Commission does not consider that the proceedings themselves have been particularly complex so far. Thus, the Commission finds that the complexity of the case cannot justify the periods of time involved.

b) The applicants' conduct

88. The applicants acknowledge that a limited number of delays were due to their behaviour but they contend that these delays were insignificant when compared with the total length of the proceedings. In particular, they stress that it is a legal right for everyone to have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention which entails that everyone is treated with respect and within a reasonable time in the court system irrespective of requests for or protests against adjournments. Therefore, they consider that requests referring to the urgency of the case were unnecessary, and that, furthermore, their lack of opposition to the defendants' pleas for adjournments should be seen in the light of the "esprit collégial" between lawyers in civil cases.

89. The Government maintain that the regrettable period of time it took to prepare the case was essentially due to the applicants' conduct. In particular the Government point out that substantial delays were caused by the fact that the applicants did not produce the relevant documentary evidence and did not submit any claims for damages until June 1993. Furthermore, the Government stress that the applicants did not at any moment during the preparation of the case request the High Court to accelerate the case, or emphasise the urgency of it.

90. As regards the applicants' conduct the Commission notes that the individual plaintiffs, applicants in the present case, do not appear to have been very much involved themselves in the proceedings concerned. However, it follows from the case-law of the Commission and the Court of Human Rights that they nevertheless are to be held responsible for the delays caused by their representatives (cf. for example Eur. Court H.R., Capuano judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 12, para. 28).

91. As already indicated above the Commission and the Court have consistently considered that in civil suits where, as in the present case, the proceedings unfold at the initiative of the parties, the reasonableness of the length of these proceedings must be assessed by reference to the diligence shown by the party concerned (cf. the above-mentioned Pretto and Others judgment, paras. 33 et seq.). What is required is "due diligence" which in the present circumstances in particular should be seen in the light of what was, or is, at stake for the individuals concerned. In this regard the Commission finds that the applicants' representatives appear to have shown very little concern for the applicants' situation. In particular the Commission points out that as from 22 March 1990, when the applicants K and L joined the case, it took until 6 August 1992, i.e. a period of more than two years, before the parties were in a position to and had reached agreement on the appointment of medical experts. All adjournments requested during this period of time were agreed upon by the parties involved.

92. Furthermore, the applicants' claims for damages were not submitted until 17 June 1993, i.e. after more than three years had passed. Having regard to the individual applicants' situation the Commission has not found any relevant circumstance which could justify such a delay. Nor have any relevant facts been submitted which could explain why the applicants did not present their claims, or otherwise clarify their position in this respect, at a much earlier date.

93. Thus, the Commission finds that the applicants are to be held responsible to a certain degree for the prolongation of the proceedings in that their representatives did not act with the necessary diligence.

c) Conduct of the administrative and judicial authorities

94. The applicants maintain that the reasons for the excessive length of the proceedings lie in the conduct of both the administrative authorities and the judicial authorities. In respect of the former the applicants point out in particular that they may be criticised for allowing the proceedings to stagnate, refraining from taking any substantial procedural measures for considerable periods of time and for failing to actively expedite already delayed proceedings by neutralising dilatory tactics. By not assisting the applicants in their task of providing documentary evidence the authorities neglected their obligation to act with diligence. In respect of the judicial authorities the applicants recall that the Contracting States are obliged to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can meet the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) to secure to everyone a final decision within a reasonable time. However, the High Court of Eastern Denmark did not act with the exceptional diligence which was called for in this unique case, and did not use its powers under the Administration of Justice Act to accelerate the proceedings in order to ensure a speedy determination of the issues in question.

95. The Government contend that regardless of the length of the proceedings no shortcomings have been established in respect of the behaviour of the High Court or the Danish authorities which were parties to the case. The Government point out that unlike other legal systems the Danish system in civil cases is not of an inquisitorial type. The proceedings are governed by the Administration of Justice Act and the conduct of the case is left almost exclusively to the diligence of the parties.  The preparation of the case progressed without periods of inactivity and the Government stress that no adjournments were granted without the agreement of both parties. Moreover, they maintain that considering the complexity and gravity of the issue it would have been unfortunate had the preparation of the case been unduly forced. The Government also stress that the Danish authorities parties to the case repeatedly requested the applicants to state their claims and submit the relevant documentary evidence. Thus, the Government are of the opinion that the length of the proceedings, in the light of an overall assessment, was reasonable and that the delays were attributable in particular to the complexity of the case and the applicants' conduct.

96. As regards the conduct of the national authorities the Commission recalls that the civil suit was directed against the Ministry of Health, the National Health Board, the National Serum Institute and a private company. Whereas all claims against the National Serum Institute and certain claims against the private company were subsequently dropped (para. 59 above) it remains a fact that delays caused by the Ministry of Health and the National Health Board are attributable to the State (cf. mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Guincho judgment of 10 July 1984, Series A no. 81, p. 16, para. 38).

97. The Commission considers that it is incumbent on the administrative authorities, when they are the defendants in court proceedings, to take every necessary measure not only to comply with the time-limits laid down, but also to ensure that the dispute is speedily concluded. That was not the case in this instance. The Commission refers, once more, to the regrettable period of time it took to prepare for the medical expert opinions. Thus, the Commission finds that the national administrative authorities, defendants in the case, also contributed to prolonging the case.

98. As regards the conduct of the judicial authorities the Commission recalls that the Danish legal system in civil cases is not of an inquisitorial type, but the lawsuit is elucidated by the parties and takes the form of a negotiation between them. However, according to the Administration of Justice Act it is nevertheless the Court which ensures that continuous progress is made in the case and that the case is not allowed to be neglected.

99. In the present case the Commission finds that what was at stake in the contested proceedings was of great importance for those of the applicants who are, or were, suffering from the incurable disease, in particular in the light of their reduced life expectancy which follows therefrom. Thus, an exceptional diligence was called for in view of the seriousness which ought to have been obvious to the Court.

100. Yet, even following the death of G/G1's son and F, in August and September 1992 respectively, and even after the application had been lodged with the Commission following which a need for a speedy procedure must have been clear, the Court did not use its powers to make orders for the speeding up of the progress of the proceedings, but limited itself to pointing out that all adjournments had been granted on the basis of joint requests from the parties. This is, in the Commission's view, not sufficient in order to fulfil the requirement of exceptional diligence.

101. Furthermore, the Commission finds that, regardless of counsel's views on the dates fixed for hearing the case, the Court did not act with the exceptional diligence required vis-à-vis those of the applicants suffering from the incurable disease when it fixed, in March 1994, the main hearing for November 1994, thereby allowing the case to lie idle for another eight months.

3) Overall assessment of the case

102. The Commission finds that none of the parties involved in the present case acted with the necessary diligence required and all of them therefore contributed to the delays which have occurred. When reaching a conclusion in such circumstances the Commission must place emphasis on the particular facts of the case and on what was at stake for the individual applicants.

a) The applicants A to G/G1

103 . The Commission recalls that the applicants A to F and G/G1's son all suffer, or suffered, from the HIV infection and were all alive when they joined the court proceedings. C, F and  G/G1's son died during the proceedings which with all clarity exemplifies the urgency which was called for in view of their situation.

104. The Commission considers that the High Court in such circumstances ought to have intervened in accordance with its powers under the Administration of Justice Act in order to ensure proper progress in the proceedings. Before the applicants joined the case the Court had already experienced the passing of approximately two years during which the parties argued on questions of formality, which indicated their lack of understanding for the need for a speedy conclusion. Nevertheless, the High Court did nothing in order to avoid that the parties argued for another two years - from September 1990 until August 1992 - on who to appoint as experts in the case; nor did the Court at any other moment act adequately when it became clear that the parties were unable to do so themselves. In respect of the applicants A to F and G/G1's son  who were, or are, suffering from the HIV the reasonable time had, in the Commission's view, already been exceeded at the time when E decided to withdraw from the case on 4 November 1993, approximately four years after its commencement. In view of these plaintiffs' particular situation the Commission considers that the High Court was called upon to secure actively a speedy determination regardless of the parties' conduct. However, in this the High Court failed. Accordingly, the dispute between the applicants A to G/G1 and the defendants in the case was not determined within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

CONCLUSION

105. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of the applicants A to G/G1.

b) The applicants K and L

106. When applying the same criteria to the applicants K and L the Commission recalls that they do not suffer from the HIV infection and their situation is accordingly not comparable to that of the other applicants. K's husband and L's son died of AIDS on 10 August 1987 and 27 August 1986 respectively, i.e. before the proceedings in Denmark commenced and several years before K and L joined the proceedings themselves. As regrettable as this may be it follows therefrom that what was at stake for K and L when they joined the case was of a different character in that the element of speed was not of the same importance for them as for the other applicants.

107. As set out above (para. 41) both K and L joined the proceedings on 22 March 1990 and in respect of L, they lasted approximately four years and eleven months. As regards K the proceedings are still pending and have accordingly lasted approximately five years and two months until now. During these periods the Commission recalls from above (paras. 90-92) that the applicants caused delays which prolonged the case unnecessarily. Furthermore, K and L agreed, through their representatives, to all adjournments throughout the entire period of time involved for which reason the conduct of the national authorities, defendants in the case, cannot be invoked successfully by them in support of their allegation of an unreasonable length of the proceedings.

108. As regards the conduct of the judicial authorities the exceptional diligence called for in respect of the applicants A to G/G1 is not apparent. K and L do not suffer from the HIV infection and accordingly, there was no risk that a delay might render the question to be resolved by the Court devoid of purpose. Thus, in respect of K and L the Commission does not consider that the High Court failed to act with the necessary diligence required.

109. Consequently, having regard to the circumstances relating to the situation of K and L, and in particular to their conduct during the proceedings in question, the Commission does not consider that the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention has been violated in respect of them.

CONCLUSION

110. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of the applicants K and L.

D. Recapitulation

111. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of the applicants A to G/G1. (para. 105)

112. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of the applicants K and L. (para. 110)

Secretary to the Second Chamber       President of the Second Chamber

      (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                        (H. DANELIUS)