Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 72
February 2005
Miller v. Sweden - 55853/00
Judgment 8.2.2005 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Public hearing
Oral hearing
Lack of oral hearing in proceedings for determining entitlement to disability benefits: violation
Facts: In 1996 the applicant applied for disability benefits under Chapter 9, section 2 of the Social Insurance Act 1962. He claimed that, even before his 65th birthday in 1983, he had incurred extra costs due to his illness (Charcot-Marie-Tooth), from which he had suffered since the 1970s and which had been diagnosed in 1982. In support of his claim he submitted a certificate by his general practitioner in 1996; a statement of 1997 in which another doctor had reproduced extracts from the applicant’s medical records for the period between 1975 and 1983, including a diagnosis of the Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease arrived at in 1982; and a statement of 1983 in which a further medical expert had agreed with that diagnosis.
The Social Insurance Office refused the request, finding that the applicant’s disability had not reached the required level before he turned 65 years of age. The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court, seeking an oral hearing in order to call as witnesses his personal doctor, the doctor appointed by the Office and all the members of the Office who had participated in the decision in his case.
The County Administrative Court found an oral hearing to be unnecessary and invited the applicant to complete his written observations. In response he reiterated his request for an oral hearing, relying on Article 6 of the Convention. The County Administrative Court rejected his appeal on the grounds that the medical and other evidence in the case showed that, even before he had reached the age of 65, he had for a considerable time been functionally impaired, but not to such a degree that, on an assessment of the overall need of assistance, he was entitled to disability benefit. The applicant’s requests for leave to appeal were refused by the Administrative Court of Appeal and the Supreme Administrative Court.
Law: The Court noted that the County Administrative Court had had full jurisdiction to examine the issue raised in the applicant’s appeal, namely whether he fulfilled the conditions for obtaining disability benefits under Chapter 9, section 2 of the 1962 Act. Since both the Administrative Court of Appeal and the Supreme Administrative Court had refused him leave to appeal, the County Administrative Court in fact became the first and only instance to examine the merits of his case. Whereas proceedings before the Swedish administrative courts were in principle in writing, an oral hearing was to be held if so requested by a party and if the competent court found that a hearing would neither be unnecessary nor dispensable for other particular reasons.
The Court noted that the question of the degree of disability from which the applicant had been suffering prior to turning 65 had apparently not been straightforward. It was unable to accept the Government’s argument that, because of the passage of time, oral evidence from the applicant’s personal doctor was unlikely to add anything useful. Nor did it seem, either from the arguments and evidence submitted to the County Administrative Court or that court’s reasons, that the issue of extra costs incurred by the applicant as a result of his illness had been clear-cut.
The issues raised by the applicant’s judicial appeal were not only technical in nature. The administration of justice would have been better served by affording the applicant a right to explain, on his own behalf or through his representative, his personal situation, taken as a whole at the relevant time, in a hearing before the County Administrative Court. Against this background it could not be said that the question whether the applicant, before the age of 65, had fulfilled the legal conditions for the grant of a disability pension, was of such a nature as to dispense the County Administrative Court from the normal obligation to hold an oral hearing.
Conclusion: violation (4 votes to 3).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy