CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 novembre 2002

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 47 November 2002 Salomonsson v. Sweden - 38978/97 Judgment 12.11.2002 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Oral hearing Lack of oral hearing in proceedings relating to disability benefits: violation Facts – The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court against the refusal of a disability benefit. The court, without holding an oral hearing, gave judgment in his favour. However, the Social Insurance Board appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal. The applicant's request for an oral hearing was refused and the court gave judgment in favour of the Board. The Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. Law – Article 6 § 1: As Swedish law provides that proceedings before the administrative courts are normally in writing, the applicant could have been expected to request a hearing before the County Administrative Court. Since he did not do so, he could reasonably be considered to have waived his right to an oral hearing before that court. Moreover, since the Supreme Administrative Court determined only whether leave to appeal should be granted, it did not make a full examination of the case and, even assuming Article 6 applied, the matter could be adequately resolved on the basis of the case-file and written submissions. However, it was necessary also to examine the lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court of Appeal. It may in some circumstances be acceptable to reject a request for a hearing on appeal, although no hearing was held at first instance. Furthermore,   disputes concerning social security benefits are generally rather technical and many such disputes may accordingly be better dealt with in writing. Nevertheless, the Administrative Court of Appeal's jurisdiction was not limited to matters of law but also extended to factual issues and it appeared that an oral hearing could have provided information of relevance to the determination of the case. There were thus no exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with a hearing and as the applicant had expressly requested an oral hearing before the Administrative Court of Appeal, he was entitled to have one. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: The Court rejected the applicant's request for pecuniary damage but made an award in respect of costs and expenses. (This case raises issues identical to those in Lundevall v.   Sweden , no.   38629/97 , 12   November 2002.)   © 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