SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 33488/96

by Kurt NIELSEN

against Denmark

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section) sitting on 22 June 1999 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C. Rozakis , President ,

Mr M. Fischbach ,

Mr G. Bonello ,

Mrs V. Strážnická ,

Mr P. Lorenzen ,

Mr A.B. Baka ,

Mr E. Levits , Judges ,

with Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 23 September 1996 by Kurt Nielsen  against Denmark and registered on 18 October 1996 under file no. 33488/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 17 November 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 28 December 1998;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Danish citizen, born in 1966.  He resides in Skanderborg , Denmark.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 12 November 1986 the applicant was involved in a car accident.  He was severely injured and is now partly disabled.

On 26 February 1988 the applicant instituted proceedings against three insurance companies in the City Court of Skanderborg ( retten i Skanderborg ).  He claimed that the defendant companies should be held liable to pay, jointly and severally, a specified amount in compensation for permanent disablement and loss of working capacity.

On 11 May 1988 the case was adjourned pending the outcome of the applicant’s request to the National Board of Industrial Injuries ( Arbejdsskadestyrelsen ), hereinafter called the NBI, to give an opinion on the degree of disablement and working capacity.  The applicant was hereafter examined by two medical experts following which the NBI submitted its expert opinion on 17 January 1990.  Having considered certain additional questions as to the degree of disablement and working capacity the NBI maintained its opinion by letter of 8 February 1991.

On 25 February 1991 the applicant requested the NBI to submit an opinion as to the moment in time his injuries could be considered stationary.  The NBI submitted its opinion on 13 May 1991.

From May 1991 until March 1992 the parties exchanged views and submitted pleadings during a number of preliminary court sessions.  On 11 March 1992 one of the defendant companies produced a supplementary list of questions for the NBI to which the applicant objected, in particular since they ought to have been submitted much earlier.  On 8 April 1992 the City Court adjourned the case in order to obtain further information from the NBI.  It nevertheless scheduled the trial to commence on 24 August 1992.  On 13 August 1992, however, the City Court decided to adjourn the case until further notice since the information from the NBI was still not available.  The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Court of Western Denmark ( Vestre Landsret ) which, however, upheld the decision on 1 October 1992.

On 8 January 1993 the NBI announced that it could not submit a reply on the basis of the previous medical examinations as they were considered to be too old.  The applicant was accordingly examined again by medical experts following which the NBI submitted its opinion as to the applicant’s degree of disablement and working capacity on 30 June 1994.

On 25 January 1995 the case was heard by the City Court.  By judgment of 15 February 1995 the defendant companies were held liable to pay 950,803.60 DKK plus interest to the applicant.  On 28 February 1995 the defendants appealed against the judgment to the High Court of Western Denmark.  On 28 September 1995 the High Court fixed the trial to commence on 1 August 1996.  It was later rescheduled to commence on 5 September 1996.

By judgment of 9 September 1996 the High Court upheld the judgment of the City Court.  The judgment has become final.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that his case against the three insurance companies was not determined within a reasonable time.

PROCEDURE

The application was introduced on 23 September 1996 and registered on 18 October 1996.

On 9 September 1998, the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government who were invited to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.

By virtue of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol no. 11 to the Convention the application was transferred to the European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of that Protocol on 1 November 1998.

The Government’s observations were submitted on 17 November 1998.  The applicant’s observations in reply were submitted on 28 December 1998.

THE LAW

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the length of the proceedings concerning the determination of his claims for compensation and damages following a car accident.  These proceedings commenced on 26 February 1988 and ended on 9 September 1996.  Accordingly, they lasted a total of 8 years 6 months and 13 days.

The applicant considers that the length of the proceedings exceeds the reasonable time requirement set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.  The Government contest this.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of “reasonable time”, and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President