CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mai 2003

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; 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 53 May 2003 Hallgren v. Sweden (dec.) - 45402/99 Decision 20.5.2003 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of proceedings – limited stakes for applicant: inadmissible The applicant moved out of home in April 1994 at the age of 19 and applied to the local council for a rent allowance. Her application was refused on the ground that her mother was in a position to help with the rent. Alternatively, the applicant could move back home. The applicant appealed successfully. The council then appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal, which ruled in its favour. The applicant lodged an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court in December 1994. The case was not given priority, since the applicant had been able to support herself financially since August 1994. Her claim therefore only concerned a period of some four months. Similar cases were lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court in 1995, 1996 and January 1997. It was decided to hear them together, so as to ensure a uniform development of case-law. The court   ruled against the applicant in December 1997. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: Although the facts of the case were not complex, there was inconsistency among the lower courts regarding the legal issues. The Supreme Administrative Court’s chief responsibility was to develop jurisprudence in the area of administrative law and provide guidance on points that were unclear. The importance of the issue for the applicant was considerably diminished after August 1994. In such circumstances, the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision to group together several similar cases was not open to criticism. Once it accepted the cases, it dealt with them within one year: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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