CASE OF RUMINSKI v. SWEDEN
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Iain Thorburn Cameron;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
6. The applicant is a Swedish national born in 1950. He lives in Jordbro. 7. The applicant suffered for many years from, inter alia, pain in his back and legs and numbness in his right arm. He alternated between full and part-time sick leave from 1996 to 2001. In 1999 he received a partial early retirement pension and in 2002 a full disability pension. 8. In 2003 he applied for life annuity and alleged that his physical problems had been caused by his former employment as a driver (1973 to 1974), as a dairy worker (1974 to 1984) and as a food science technician (1984 to 1991). The Social Insurance Office (Försäkringskassan) appointed an in-house specialist in orthopaedic surgery who, in a written statement, concluded that there was not a high degree of probability (hög grad av sannolikhet) that any harmful element in the applicant’s former employment had caused his problems. 9. On 17 May 2005, after having held an oral hearing, the Social Insurance Office rejected the application. Referring to, inter alia, the specialist statement by the insurance doctor, it was held that the applicant had not been subject to any harmful influences which, with a high degree of probability, could have caused or aggravated his problems. 10. The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court (förvaltningsrätten) of Stockholm. On 19 April 2007 the court, after having held an oral hearing, upheld the Social Insurance Office’s decision in full. The court found that, although it was scientifically known that employees in the food industry had a statistically high risk of injury, the circumstances in the applicant’s case had to be taken into account. The applicant’s back problems had appeared after barely two years in the industry and he suffered from degenerative changes to his back. Against that background, the medical investigation and other material did not adequately support the conclusion that the applicant, in his work, had been subject to any harmful influences which, with a high degree of probability, could have caused or aggravated his problems. 11. Upon further appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm, the applicant submitted, inter alia, a medical statement (epikris) issued in February 2008 by the Centre of Public Health, Occupational and Environmental Medicine (Centrum for folkhälsa, arbets och miljömedicin). According to the medical statement, there were reasons to believe that the applicant’s work had caused his problems. 12. In a written statement to the appellate court, the Social Insurance Office questioned the conclusions in the medical statement as they were based on information about exposure which was to a high degree uncertain. Furthermore, there were medical records from 1997 in which the applicant was held to be fully able-bodied and in which it was noted that no somatic evidence had been found in support of the applicant’s symptoms. 13. On 17 March 2008, the Administrative Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal. The applicant requested an oral hearing in the case but, on 5 September 2008, the court rejected the request. It referred to the nature of the case and to the fact that an oral hearing had been held before the County Administrative Court. The applicant was given the opportunity to submit further observations. 14. In a judgment of 27 October 2008, the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment in full. It first gave an account of the parties’ submissions and the evidence relied upon, including the medical statement of February 2008, and then stated the following reasons: “The medical and other evidence in the case does not demonstrate that the applicant has been exposed to any such harmful influences in his work which could, with a high degree of probability, have caused his problems. His back-related and other problems can thus – as has been found also by the County Administrative Court and the Social Insurance Office – not be defined as a work-related injury. [The applicant] is therefore not entitled to life annuity according to the [Work Injury Insurance Act]. The appeal must consequently be rejected.” 15. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen). He complained of the lack of reasoning in the Administrative Court of Appeal’s judgment and argued that that court’s refusal to hold an oral hearing had infringed his right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. 16. On 4 August 2009, the Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal. 17. On 3 February 2010 the applicant lodged an application with the Court, complaining that his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention had been infringed because the Administrative Court of Appeal had refused to hold an oral hearing and its judgment had not been sufficiently reasoned. 18. This application was declared inadmissible by the Court on 21 May 2013 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court found that the applicant had failed to lodge a claim with the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern) or the ordinary courts to seek compensation for the alleged breaches of the Convention (Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.), no. 10404/10, 21 May 2013). 19. Consequently, on 30 December 2013, the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the alleged breaches of the Convention with the Chancellor of Justice. He argued that the Administrative Court of Appeal’s lack of reasoning, as well as its refusal to hold an oral hearing, had infringed his right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. He requested 50,000 Swedish kronor (SEK) for non-pecuniary damage. 20. The Chancellor of Justice communicated the case to the Administrative Court of Appeal which submitted that its handling of the case had been in accordance with domestic law as well as the Convention. In response, the applicant maintained, and developed the grounds for, his claim. 21. On 15 January 2015 the Chancellor of Justice rejected the applicant’s claim. As concerns the lack of an oral hearing, the Chancellor of Justice noted that the Social Insurance Office and the County Administrative Court had held an oral hearing and consequently, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, a less strict standard applied to the requirement to hold a hearing before the appellate court. Thus, in view of the character of the case and the fact that the applicant had been given the opportunity to finalise his submissions in writing and the court had had access to substantial written evidence, the Chancellor of Justice concluded that there had been no breach of the Convention in this respect. 22. As concerns the Administrative Court of Appeal’s alleged lack of reasoning, the Chancellor of Justice referred extensively to the Court’s case law on this matter and then made the following evaluation. The Administrative Court of Appeal had, in its judgment, accounted for the applicant’s arguments and the new evidence he had submitted before it. It had further accounted for the considerations and conclusions drawn from the evidence submitted by the parties, namely, that the investigation in the case did not demonstrate that the applicant had been exposed to any such harmful influences in his work which, with a high degree of probability, could have caused his problems. Thus, the Chancellor of Justice found that the Administrative Court of Appeal had taken a stance on the central and decisive question in the case, that is, whether the applicant had been exposed to harmful influences in his work. While the Chancellor noted that it would have been preferable, for pedagogical reasons, for the court to have given clearer grounds for why the applicant’s evidence had not been sufficient, she concluded that the reasoning was not so deficient that the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention had been infringed. 23. At the relevant time, provisions on work injuries were set out in the Work Injury Insurance Act (Lag (1976:380) om arbetsskadeförsäkring), which covered all people working in Sweden. A person whose ability to earn an income had been impaired due to a work-related injury was in some specified situations eligible for life annuity (Chapter 4, section 1). The term “work-related injury” referred to injuries resulting from accidents or other harmful effects at work. “Other harmful effect” meant the influence of a factor that with a high degree of probability might cause the kind of injury suffered (Chapter 2, section 1(1)). If an insured person had suffered an accident or another harmful effect, the injury was to be considered to have been caused by the harmful effect, if that causal link was highly probable (Chapter 2, section 2). The standard of proof was somewhat mitigated on 1 July 2002, but that amendment did not apply to the applicant’s case. 24. The administration of justice before the administrative courts is regulated by the Administrative Court Procedure Act (Förvaltningsprocesslagen, 1971:291). According to section 30 of the Act, the determination of a case by a court must be based on what is contained in the documents and what has otherwise been established in the case. The decision must state the reasons that determined the outcome.