Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)27[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Miller against Sweden
(Application No. 55853/00, judgment of 8 February 2005, final on 8 May 2005)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns an administrative court’s refusal to hold an oral hearing in proceedings concerning the applicant’s right to disability benefit in respect of extra needs due to his disability (violation of Article 6 paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Sweden’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures, preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)27
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Miller against Sweden
Introductory case summary
The case concerns an administrative court’s refusal to hold an oral hearing in proceedings concerning the applicant’s right to disability benefit in respect of extra needs due to his disability.
The European Court stated that in proceedings on the merits before a court of first and sole instance, the right to a public hearing entails an entitlement to an oral hearing unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify dispensing with such a hearing. The European Court further noted that neither the question of the degree of disability nor the issue of extra costs was straightforward. Given the issues in question, the County Administrative Court could not be dispensed from its obligation to hold an oral hearing (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
1 000 EUR
4 500 EUR
5 500 EUR
Paid on 05/07/2005
b) Individual measures
The Swedish Administrative Court Procedure Act provides the applicant with a possibility to ask the Supreme Administrative Court to reopen administrative proceedings on the ground that there has been a violation of the Convention.
II.General measures
In the context of the examination of the case of Lundevall against Sweden (see Resolution ResDH(2003)152), the Swedish authorities provided information about measures taken with a view to preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the Lundevall judgment. This information also applies to the present case.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Sweden has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 January 2009 at the 1043rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy