FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50974/99
by Gullmar BÄCKMAN
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 February 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 June 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Gullmar Bäckman, was a Swedish national who was born in 1946 and died in 1999. He was represented before the Court by Mr U. Jacobson, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
By applications lodged in 1986 and 1990 the applicant applied for disability benefits under the Social Insurance Act (Lagen om allmän försäkring, 1962:381) due to his having additional costs as a consequence of suffering from Morbid Chron. He claimed that he was entitled to a disability allowance fixed at a certain percentage of a basic amount geared to the price index (basbelopp).
The Social Insurance Office determined the applications in various decisions taken between 1986 and 1992. It granted the applicant a disability allowance of the requested level as from October 1988 but found that, for the period January 1986 – September 1988, he was only entitled to an allowance fixed at a lower percentage than claimed.
The applicant appealed against the latter decision. The County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Örebro and the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Jönköping rejected the appeal. On 28 May 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) refused the applicant leave to appeal.
The applicant requested all three court instances to hold an oral hearing. On 12 January 1995 and 15 October 1997, respectively, the County Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected his requests. By a letter of 17 December 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court informed him that it normally did not hold oral hearings and invited him to make possible further submissions in writing.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant mainly complained about the lack of an oral hearing in the proceedings in the case. He also claimed that the courts had failed to examine on the merits the alleged violation of that provision.
THE LAW
By a decision of 9 September 2003 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government and invited them to submit observations on the applicant’s complaint concerning the lack of an oral hearing.
On 19 September 2003 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died in October 1999. The Court forwarded this information to the applicant’s representative who stated that he would contact the applicant’s heirs to enquire whether they wished to continue the application. By a letter of 12 November 2003 the representative requested that the application be withdrawn.
In the above circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant’s heirs do not intend to pursue the present application on behalf of the applicant’s estate. Furthermore, the Court does not consider that respect for human rights requires it to continue the examination of the application. It observes that the general principles relating to the issue raised have already been considered by the Court in three judgments of 12 November 2002 (Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95; Lundevall v. Sweden, no. 38629/97; and Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the application should be struck out of the list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy