CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 mars 2014

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 No. 172 March 2014 Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland - 52067/10 and 41072/11 Judgment 11.3.2014 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Fixed ten-year limitation period for asbestos related claims irrespective of whether claimant was aware of its effects upon him: violation Facts – The applicants are the widow and two daughters of a mechanic who died in 2005 from a disease caused by the asbestos to which he had been exposed in the course of his work. The deceased’s daughters continued the proceedings brought by their father against his employer. They and their mother also claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. All the applicants’ claims were held to be time-barred, as the ten-year limitation period began to run as soon as the claim became enforceable, irrespective of whether the claimant was aware of the effects of the damage. Law – Article 6 § 1: This case concerned the fixing of the starting point for the limitation period applicable under Swiss law to victims of asbestos exposure. Given that the latency period for asbestos-related diseases could be several decades, the fixed limitation period of ten years – which, according to the legislation in force and the case-law of the Federal Court, began running on the date when the person concerned had been exposed to the asbestos dust – would invariably have expired. Accordingly, any claims for damages would be bound from the outset to fail, as they would lapse before the victims could be objectively said to be aware of their rights. Furthermore, the claims lodged by asbestos victims, who had been exposed to that substance prior to the outright ban on its use introduced in Switzerland in 1989, had all become time-barred under the law in force. The bill revising the Swiss legislation on limitation periods did not provide for any equitable solution to the problem, if only on a transitional basis in the form of a “period of grace”. The rules on limitation periods pursued the legitimate aim, inter alia , of ensuring legal certainty. As to their proportionality, however, their systematic application to persons suffering from diseases which, like those caused by asbestos, could not be diagnosed until many years after the triggering events, was liable to deprive those persons of the opportunity to assert their claims before the courts. Taking into account the legislation existing in Switzerland to deal with comparable situations and without wishing to prejudge other solutions that might be considered, the Court took the view that where it was scientifically proven that a person could not know that he or she was suffering from a certain disease, that fact should be taken into consideration in calculating the limitation period. Accordingly, the Court found that the application of the limitation periods had restricted the applicants’ access to a court to the point of impairing the very essence of their right. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 41: EUR 12,180 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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