Resolution ResDH (2003)152

concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 12 Novem ber 2002 (final on 12 February 2003) in the case of Lundevall against Sweden

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 October 2003 at the 854th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Lundevall case delivered on 12 November 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 38629/97) against Sweden, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 February 1997 under former Article 25 of the Co n vention by Mr. Rolf Lundevall , a Swedish national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint concerning the violation of the applicant’s  right to a fair trial on account of the refusal by the Administrative Court of Appeal to hold a hearing in proceedings concerning social security benefits ;

Whereas in its judgment of 12 November 2002 the Court unanimously:

- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 5 000 euros in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent state at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfa c tion;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the mea s ures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 12 November 2002, having regard to Sweden’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken with a view to preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;

Having satisfied itself that on 20 March 2003, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the a p plicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 12 November 2002,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Sweden, that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH (2003)152

Information provided by the Government of Sweden during the examination of the Lundevall case by the Committee of Ministers

Generally speaking, the Government of Sweden recalls that both the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights are part of the Swedish legal order and have to be applied by the courts and authorities (see for example Resolution DH(98)205 in the case of Holm against Sweden, or Resolution DH(95)94, in the Case of Fredin No. 2 against Sweden).

The Government therefore considers that Swedish administrative courts will not fail to adapt their practice with regard to the holding of oral hearings to the jurisprudence of the European Court, in order to prevent new violations of the Convention.

It states in this regard that the attention of the authorities concerned has been drawn to their obligations ensuing from the Convention by means of the publication in Svensk Juristtidning (the most important legal journal in Sweden) of an article by Mr Danelius , former member of the European Commission of Human Rights, explaining the Strasbourg Court’s position in the cases of Lundevall and Salomonsson against Sweden. Furthermore, an explanatory report relating to the European Court’s judgments in these cases has been sent to all the relevant judicial authorities. An additional publication of the judgments is under way in the Judicial Authorities Bulletin ( Domstolsverket informerar ).

Finally, with regard to the applicant’s rights, the government notes that the applicant has the right to ask for the reopening of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court and that this Court can order the reopening of the proceedings, if it considers it necessary, in order to fully erase the consequences of the violations for him.

The Government of Sweden considers that Sweden has accordingly complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.