CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } SECOND SECTION Application no. 51153/09 Metha EDSLEV-CHRISTENSEN against Denmark lodged on 31 August 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Metha Edslev-Christensen, is a Danish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Silkeborg. She was represented before the Court by Mr Bjarne Weihrauch, a lawyer practising in Silkeborg. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Administrative proceedings For twenty-four years the applicant worked for a company which produced garden tools. She stopped work in 1993 due to severe pain in her neck and shoulders. On 1 July 1993, via her general practitioner and alleging that the pain was caused by her work, the applicant instituted administrative proceedings under the Act on Protection against the Consequences of Industrial Injuries (Lov om forsikring mod følger af arbejdskade). She requested that the National Board of Industrial Injuries ( Arbejdsskadestyrelsen ) acknowledge that her injury was work-related and that she was therefore entitled to compensation. The applicant’s request was refused on 20 July 1993 and several times thereafter, including on appeal to the Social Appeal Board (den Sociale Ankestyrelse), although she submitted additional medical statements supporting her claim. On 7 May and 20 June 1997 the National Board of Industrial Injuries refused to reopen the case. The applicant appealed against that decision on 30   May 1997 to the Social Appeal Board, which upheld the refusal on 16   September 1997. B.     First set of court proceedings On 30 September 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings before the High Court of Western Denmark ( Vestre Landsret ) against the Social Appeal Board. During the proceedings, medical statements from 26 April and 30 May 2000 were produced. On 6 March 2001 the Social Appeal Board decided in the applicant’s favour, acknowledging that her injury was work-related. Consequently, on 27 March 2001 the applicant withdrew the case before the High Court. On 23 April 2001 the High Court took note that the case was withdrawn as settled, and fixed the fees to be paid. C.     Further administrative proceedings Subsequently, the Social Appeal Board referred the case back to the National Board of Industrial Injuries in order to calculate the degree of the applicant’s disability and her loss of working capacity, and thus the equivalent compensation to which she was entitled. On 12 July 2002 the National Board of Industrial Injuries found that the applicant had lost 25% of her working capacity and that accordingly she should be granted compensation in the amount of 184,000 Danish Kroner (DKK) without interest. On 8 August 2002, the applicant appealed against that decision to the Social Appeal Board, which by decision of 4 August 2003 partly found for the applicant and increased the degree of her loss of working capacity to 35% equivalent so that accordingly the compensation was to be increased to DKK 259,359. The Social Appeal Board agreed with the National Board of Industrial Injuries that the applicant was not entitled to interest. The applicant’s request of 2 September 2003 that the compensation be increased or interest added was refused by the Social Appeal Board on 30   July   2004. D.     Second set of court proceedings On 3 April 2006 the applicant, who had been granted free legal aid, brought the decision before the High Court, claiming that compensation should be granted from 10 August 1994, or in the alternative, as close as possible to that date. It appears that a hearing was scheduled for November 2008. On 10 June 2008 the Social Appeal Board reopened the administrative proceedings and decided that compensation should be granted as from 20   January 1994. Consequently, on 18 August 2008 the applicant withdrew the case before the High Court. E.     Further administrative proceedings On 2 March 2009, the applicant received her compensation in the amount of DKK 324,605 and on 8 July 2009 she received specific reasoning for its calculation. COMPLAINT The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings, during which her claim for compensation for the industrial injury she alleged she had suffered was determined, and which in her view commenced on 1 July 1993, exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     In the light of the outcome in, for example, Poulsen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 8305/04, 4 September 2006, when did the proceedings commence as to the determination of the applicant’s claim for compensation for the industrial injury she alleged she had suffered?   2.     Were these proceedings terminated within a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?