CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 avril 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 118 April 2009 Mendel v. Sweden - 28426/06 Judgment 7.4.2009 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Access to “court” to challenge an administrative decision cancelling the applicant’s participation in a programme for the unemployed: article 6 § 1 applicable   Access to court Access to “court” to challenge an administrative decision cancelling the applicant’s participation in a programme for the unemployed: violation   Facts : The applicant was registered with the Employment Service and its activity included a guarantee scheme designed mainly to give the unemployed greater opportunities to find a job. Each participant was required to attend information meetings, to meet his or her supervisor on a regular basis and to apply for suitable jobs. In 2005 the Employment Service excluded the applicant from the scheme on the grounds that she had failed to comply with these requirements. She unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the National Labour Market Board. The latter’s decision indicated that no appeal lay against it. Law : Admissibility :The Convention did not guarantee any right to participate in a labour-market policy programme. Therefore, the question whether the right claimed by the applicant existed in Sweden had to be answered solely with reference to domestic law. As the relevant provisions were drafted with the word “may” and required that such participation be justified in terms of labour-market policy, the claimed “right” could not, on arguable grounds, be said to be recognised under   national law. However, the Court also had to consider whether a person who had already been assigned to the activity guarantee scheme could be considered to have gained, on at least arguable grounds, a right not to have his or her assignment arbitrarily revoked. Under the relevant provision, an assignment to the activity guarantee scheme could be revoked if a person refused an offer of suitable work or another measure under the scheme without an acceptable reason, if he or she acted improperly or otherwise disrupted the activities, or if there were other special reasons to revoke the assignment. This provision had to be considered to have laid down tangible criteria which could be examined without particular difficulties by the competent authorities and, subject to appeal, the national courts. It did not leave the domestic authorities a wide margin of discretion. Moreover, exclusion from the scheme entailed serious economic consequences for the individual concerned as he or she lost benefits and would only be entitled to receive other unemployment benefits after completing a new qualifying period of employment. Therefore, the applicant’s claim not to have her participation in the scheme arbitrarily revoked concerned a “right” which could arguably be said to be recognised under Swedish law. The proceedings before the National Labour Market Board, which had upheld the decision to exclude the applicant from the scheme, were directly decisive of that right. Article   6 § 1 of the Convention was therefore applicable. Merits :The Court found a breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 2,000 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