CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 juin 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 87 June 2006 Maurice v. France (just satisfaction – striking out) [GC] - 11810/03 Judgment 21.6.2006 [GC] Article 41 Just satisfaction Compensation for disability not detected prenatally owing to error: friendly settlement [This summary also covers the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Draon v. France , no. 1513/03, 21 June 2006] Facts : the applicants are the parents of children affected by severe congenital disabilities which, on account of medical error, were not detected during the prenatal examination. They brought proceedings against the negligent health-care establishments, but on account of the application to pending cases of the Law of 4 March 2002 on medical liability for the birth of a disabled child, which had entered into force while their claims were pending, although they obtained orders requiring the establishments to pay them compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the disruption to their lives, they did not receive compensation for the special burdens arising from their children’s disabilities, which they might legitimately have expected to obtain before the Law of 4 March 2002 was enacted. In two judgments on the merits, of 6   October 2005, the Grand Chamber held that the Law of 4 March 2002 had deprived the applicants, without sufficient compensation, of a substantial portion of the damages they had claimed, making them bear an individual and excessive burden, in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Law : Article 41 – The applicants requested in respect of pecuniary damage an amount corresponding to the sums they would have received as the law stood prior to enactment of the Law of 4 March 2002. The Draon case was struck out of the Court’s list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which Mr and Mrs Draon were to receive EUR 2,488,113.27, including in particular a capital sum of EUR 1,428,540 plus interest, paid in respect of the provision of their child’s needs by his parents throughout his life. The Maurice case was struck out of the Court’s list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicants were to receive EUR 2,440,279.14, including in particular a capital sum of EUR   1,690,000 plus interest, paid in respect of the provision of their child’s needs by her parents throughout her life.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes