CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 24 juin 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2002)72 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 October 2000, final on 10 January 2001 in the case of Lagrange against France   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 June 2002 at the 798th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Lagrange case delivered on 10 October 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 39485/98) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 January 1998 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Guy Lagrange, Mr Guillaume Lagrange and Ms Pierrette Lagrange, three French nationals, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint concerning the fact that the applicants, parents and brother of a haemophiliac infected with HIV following blood transfusions and who has since died, could not have access to a court, the competent court having declared their requests for compensation before ordinary courts inadmissible since they had already accepted an offer of compensation from the Compensation Fund for Transfusion Patients and Haemophiliacs; Whereas in its judgment of 10 October 2000 the Court unanimously: - held, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; - held, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 1 000 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 10 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 2,74% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement; - dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction; Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention; Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 10 October 2000, having regard to France’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case, notably through Law No. 91-1406 of 31 December 1991 introducing various social welfare provisions to set up a special scheme for the compensation of haemophiliacs and transfusion patients who had been infected following injections of blood products. The distinctive feature of the system, which is based on solidarity, is that it enables reparation to be made for the consequences of HIV infection independently of the investigation of liability, (see notably Resolutions DH (99) 348 and DH (99) 349 respectively in the cases Bellet and F.E.). In addition, the government of the respondent State indicated that the European Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned; Having satisfied itself that on 14 February 2001, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 10 October 2000, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.