Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
July 1997
Rolf Gustafson v. Sweden - 23196/94
Judgment 1.7.1997
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Impartial tribunal
Independent tribunal
Rejection by Criminal Damage Compensation Board of applicant's claim for compensation administered under a statutory scheme on account of his failure to adduce any new relevant evidence proving he had been the victim of a crime; applicant only submitted material already considered by domestic court which acquitted alleged perpetrator: no violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
A.Applicability
Applicant's eligibility to compensation disputed by Board – claim lodged presumed to be genuine and serious – presumption not rebutted by simple fact that applicant had not adduced any new evidence proving he had been the victim of a crime – functions of Board under the Act different from those of the court which acquitted alleged perpetrator of offence – Act gave a right to compensation to claimants who complied with its conditions – that right was of a civil nature since it was intended to confer an individual pecuniary benefit.
Conclusion: Article 6 § 1 applicable (seven votes to two).
B.Compliance
Decision-making procedures of Board complied with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 – applicant could have requested an oral hearing – applicant aware that Board seldom had recourse to oral hearings – may reasonably be considered to have waived his right to an oral hearing – no reasons of expediency which would have required the Board itself to convene the applicant since it had before it his complete case file – reasons given for rejection of claim sufficient in the circumstances.
Absence of a right of appeal against Board's decision not a procedural defect since Board complied with the requirements of a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
© 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