FIRST SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 45402/99 by Josefin HALLGREN against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 3 October 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mrs W. Thomassen , President , Mrs E. Palm, Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr B. Zupančič , Mr T. Panţîru , judges , [Note1]

and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 June 1998 and registered on 14 January 1999,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Swedish national, born in 1974 and living in Enskede , Sweden.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows.

In the beginning of 1994, when the applicant was 19 years old, she moved from her mother’s apartment to an apartment of her own.  At that time the applicant had finished school and had a temporary job as a trainee at a radio station.  On 5 April 1994 she lodged an application for social welfare assistance with the Social District Council of Kungsbacka ( S ociala distriktsnämnden i Kungsbacka ; hereinafter “the Council”).  In her application she asked for a supplementary social allowance for her living expenses and for her rent under Section 6 of the Social Services Act ( Socialtj ä nstlagen , 1980:620) .

On 20 April 1994 the Council rejected the applicant’s request, finding that the applicant’s parents could provide for her needs.  The applicant appealed against the decision to the County Administrative Court ( L änsrätten ) .

On 1 September 1994 the County Administrative Court gave judgment in the applicant’s favour.  The court found that since the applicant had attained her majority and was not studying any more, her parents were not obliged to support her financially.  The court found also that the applicant’s trainee salary did not give her a reasonable standard of living. Therefore, the court concluded that she was entitled to social welfare assistance under Section 6 of the Social Services Act.

The Council appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal ( Kammarrätten ).  In its appeal the Council requested the Administrative Court of Appeal to stay the enforcement of the County Administrative Court’s judgment.  In a decision delivered on 29 September 1994 the Administrative Court of Appeal granted the Council’s request and stayed the enforcement of the lower court’s judgment.  On 7 November 1994 the Administrative Court of Appeal delivered a judgment that upheld the decision of the Council.  Thus, the applicant’s claim for social welfare assistance was rejected.

On 18 November 1994 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court ( Regeringsrätten ).

By decision of 28 January 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court granted leave to appeal.

On 11 December 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal and, consequently, rejected the applicant’s request.  The Supreme Administrative Court found that the applicant’s financial problems had started when she moved to an apartment of her own and that, at the relevant time, she was not in need of an apartment of her own to be ensured a reasonable standard of living.  Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to social welfare assistance under Section 6 of the Social Services Act.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings.  She points out that the case was pending before the Supreme Administrative Court for more than 3 years.  She argues that this was unreasonable considering the subject-matter of the case.  The applicant claims that the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court amounts to a violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

Furthermore, by letter of 26 November 1998 the applicant complained that the Supreme Administrative Court did not follow existing national law but created new law and that the court, therefore, exceeded its competence under the Swedish Constitution.  In this respect the applicant claims that her rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 7 of the Convention were violated.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings.  In this respect she points out that her case was pending before the Supreme Administrative Court for more than 3 years.  She argues that this was unreasonable considering the subject-matter of the case.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this part of the application and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. Furthermore, by letter of 26 November 1998 the applicant complained that the Supreme Administrative Court did not follow existing national law but created new law and that the court, therefore, exceeded its competence.  In this respect the applicant claims that her rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 7 of the Convention were violated.

The Court recalls that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides that the Court may only deal with a matter which has been presented within a period of six months from the date on which the final domestic decision was taken. In principle, the first letter from the applicant setting out summarily the substance of his or her complaints interrupts this time-limit.

The Court finds that the final domestic decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention was given by the Supreme Administrative Court on 11 December 1997.  Furthermore, the Court finds that the complaints the applicant now wants it to consider were not introduced until she submitted them summarily in her letter of 26 November 1998 which is more than six months after the final decision in the case.  It follows that this part of the application has been submitted out of time and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint relating to the length of proceedings.

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Michael O’Boyle Wilhelmina Thomassen

Registrar President

[Note1] Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK ( Shift+Enter ). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)