THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
1. Background to the case
2. Proceedings before the Regional Court
time-limit by one month, the applicants submitted further comments on the expert report and requested the court to commission a supplementary report.
3. Proceedings before the Court of Appeal
accident-related and biomechanical expert report (unfall- und biomechanische Gutachten) and a neurootologic expert report, and to apply French law instead of German law as both parties had stronger links to France than to Germany.
4. Proceedings after the remittal
After addressing three reminders to him, the court received his report on 19 January 2005. On 20 April 2005 the applicants submitted their comments on this report after having been granted a two-month extension of the time-limit.
On 17 October 2005 the expert's observations reached the court, which then invited the parties to make their comments by 2 November 2005.
On 26 October 2005 the applicants requested two further weeks to make their comments, which was granted.
On 19 December 2005 the parties informed the court that they wished to have the expert on the applicability of French law commissioned first.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
B. Merits
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
non-pecuniary damage, referring to the amount granted in the case of Sürmeli (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 145,
ECHR 2006 ...) and waived any claims in respect of pecuniary damage.
non-pecuniary damage as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings which is not sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation.
Ruling on an equitable basis, it makes to both applicants a joint award of
EUR 10,000 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
no. 1126/05, § 78, 16 July 2009), it does not find it unreasonable to award both applicants the sum of EUR 250 claimed under this head.
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to both applicants jointly;
(ii) EUR 736.25 (seven hundred and thirty-six euros and twenty-five cents) in respect of costs and expenses to both applicants jointly;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable to them on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 March 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Philips Karel Jungwiert
Deputy Registrar President