CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 24 mai 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        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)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1 - 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The application            (paras. 2 - 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.    The proceedings            (paras. 5 - 10). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 11 - 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 16 - 71). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras.16 - 63). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3              a)     The applicants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3                  (paras. 16 - 25)              b)     Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3                  (paras. 26 - 31)              c)     The civil court proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . 5                  (paras. 32 - 63)         B.    Relevant domestic law            (paras. 64 - 71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 72 - 112) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14         A.    Complaint declared admissible            (para. 72) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14         B.    Point at issue            (para. 73) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14         C.    As regards Article 6 of the Convention            (paras. 74 - 110). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14              1)     Period to be taken into consideration                  (paras. 76 - 83) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page              2)     The reasonableness of the length of                  the proceedings                  (paras. 84 - 101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15                    a)    Complexity of the case                       (paras. 85 - 87). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16                    b)    The applicants' conduct                       (paras. 88 - 93). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16                    c)    Conduct of the administrative and                       judicial authorities                       (paras. 94 - 101) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17              3)     Overall assessment of the case                  (paras. 102 - 110) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19                    a)    The applicants A to G/G1                       (paras. 103 - 104). . . . . . . . . . . . . .19              CONCLUSION            (para. 105). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20                    b)    The applicants K and L                       (paras. 106 - 109). . . . . . . . . . . . . .20              CONCLUSION            (para. 110). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21         D.    Recapitulation            (paras. 111 - 112) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21   APPENDIX I:       DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO                  THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . .   22   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:              MM.    H. DANELIUS, President                  C.A. NØRGAARD            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    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 son was infected with the HIV between 1 January 1978 and 17 October 1985. The AIDS symptoms appeared in 1985 and L's son died thereof on 27 August 1986.   25.    The applicants A to F, the sons of G/G1 and L as well as K's husband 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 on 18 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