Search
document

Document text Analytics

DENEV v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 19537/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1550

Document date: March 31, 1993

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

DENEV v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 19537/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1550

Document date: March 31, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 19537/92

by Maria and Martin DENEV

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

31 March 1993, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

J.-C. GEUS

M. NOWICKI

Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 31 January 1992

by Maria and Martin DENEV against Sweden and registered on 24 February

1992 under file No. 19537/92;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The first applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1955. The

second applicant, her husband, is a Swedish and Bulgarian citizen, born

in 1938. They reside at Semmering, Austria.

The facts as presented by the applicants may be summarised as

follows.

The applicants have a son, Alexander, born in 1977, who was a

pupil at the Swedish school in Vienna. The applicants applied to the

Swedish National School Administration (Skolverket) for a state subsidy

to their son's school education on the basis of Section 29 of the 1978

Ordinance of State Subsidies to Swedish School Education Abroad

(förordningen om statsbidrag till svensk undervisning i utlandet).

According to this provision, a pupil in a Swedish school abroad or a

pupil benefiting abroad from teaching by correspondence is eligible for

a subsidy if, inter alia, at least one of the parents is a Swedish

citizen and at least one of the parents resides abroad as employed by

or as director of a Swedish enterprise, i.e. an enterprise which is a

Swedish legal person. The applicants claimed that they resided abroad

because of their enterprise. In this respect they have referred to a

certificate of registration of 6 February 1975, showing that "Martin

Denev's Research Institute" has been entered into the Register of the

Country Administrative Board of Stockholm County (länsstyrelsen i

Stockholms län).

By decision of 8 August 1991, the National School Administration

decided not to grant the request, which in its decision was indicated

as relating to "cost-free correspondence materials for Alexander

Denev", the reason being that the eligibility criteria in Section 29

of the 1978 Ordinance were considered not to be satisfied.

The applicants state that for the preceding year they had

appealed against a similar decision to the Supreme Administrative Court

(Regeringsrätten) which, however, had considered itself not to be

competent to examine the appeal. For this reason they did not lodge a

new appeal against the decision of 8 August 1991.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain of violations Article 6 para. 1 of

Convention in that

(a) they were denied the right to an impartial tribunal to test their

right to state subsidies for their son;

(b) they were denied a fair examination of their right, as there was

no dialogue with them on why they did not satisfy the legal

requirements for state subsidies and as the decision of the

National School Administration did not contain reasons or

arguments.

THE LAW

The applicants complain of violations of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention in that they did not have access to an

impartial tribunal in regard to their request for state subsidies to

their son's school education and in that their request was not examined

in a fair manner by the National School Administration, which rejected

their request without giving reasons or arguments.

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides, in its

relevant parts, as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...

everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a

reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal

established by law."

The first question which arises is therefore whether the

rejection of the applicants' request for state subsidies determined

their civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

of the Convention.

In this regard, the Commission recalls that in the cases of

Feldbrugge and Deumeland the European Court of Human Rights was called

upon to examine whether the right to certain social benefits was to be

regarded as a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) (Eur. Court H.R., Feldbrugge judgment of 29 May 1986, Series

A no. 99, and Deumeland judgment of the same date, Series A no. 100).

In these judgments, the Court examined the features of public law and

those of private law which were inherent in the social security systems

involved, and it reached its conclusion on the basis of a consideration

of whether the features of public law or of private law were

predominant.

In the present case, the Commission notes that the system of

state subsidies to school education abroad is predominantly, if not

exclusively, of a public law character. The system is in no way based

on specific contributions paid by the individuals concerned and bears

no resemblance to a private insurance. Consequently, the Commission is

of the opinion that the applicants' complaints do not relate to civil

rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) and that the

application must therefore be rejected as being incompatible ratione

materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant