FIFTH SECTION

Application no . 10404/10 Krzysztof RUMINSKI against Sweden lodged on 3 February 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant , Mr Krzysztof Ruminski , is a Swedish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Haninge .

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

The applicant suffered for many years from , inter alia , pain in his back and legs and numbness in his right arm. He was diagnosed with lumbago , sciatica and myositis and was granted early retirement pension in 2001.

In 2003 he applied for life annuity and alleged that his physical problems were caused by his former work as a driver (1973-1974) , worker in a dairy (1974-1984) and food science technician (1984-1991). The Social Insurance Agency (hereinafter “the Agency”) appointed an in-house specialist in orthopaedic surgery who , in a written statement , concluded that there was not a high degree of plausibility ( hög grad av sannolikhet ) that any harmful element in the applicant ’ s former work had caused his problems. She pointed out that the applicant had undertaken varied work where he was mobile , which was positive for back conditions as it contributed to muscular activity. Furthermore , the fact that the applicant ’ s back problems had begun after only two years of work indicated that they were caused by a degenerative back injury. The statement was communicated to the applicant.

On 19 May 2005 , after having held oral hearings in the case , the Agency decided to refuse the application. It referred to the specialist statement as well as the remaining investigations made in the case and held that it could not find that the applicant had been subject to any harmful influences which , with a high degree of plausibility , could have caused or worsened his problems.

The applicant appealed and the County Administrative Court held oral hearings. On 19 April 2007 the court upheld the decision of the Agency. It additionally pointed out that the applicant ’ s back problems had begun when he was young and that X-rays had shown that the applicant had degenerative changes in his back.

Upon further appeal , the applicant submitted a medical statement ( epikris ) dated February 2008 from the Centre of Public Health , division of labour and environmental medicine ( Centrum for folkhälsa , Arbets - och miljömedicin ) of the Stockholm County Council , which had conducted an ergonomic examination in the case. The centre held , inter alia , that the applicant ’ s former work , in particular during the first eleven years , had put significant demands on his lower back as it had included heavy lifting combined with a stooping and/or twisted back posture and whole-body vibrations. According to the centre , nothing suggested that other health problems or external factors in the applicant ’ s case could explain his problems. The centre concluded in the medical statement that there were predominant reasons to believe that the former work of the applicant had caused his problems. The applicant further submitted a document dated 1975 concerning , inter alia , problems within the work environment in the dairy where he had worked as well as a certificate from a physician working for the dairy who supported , inter alia , that the ergonomic situation there during the 1970s and 1980s had caused physical strain to workers ’ backs and necks. The applicant requested oral hearings to be held by the Administrative Court of Appeal before it decided whether to grant leave to appeal as well as before it decided on the merits of the case. He also requested the medical specialist and the physicians working at the Centre of Public Health and the dairy to be heard before the court.

In a written statement to the court , the Agency pointed out that the applicant had not been able to specify certain aspects concerning his work when he had been examined by the Centre of Public Health and held that the submitted medical statement should thus be questioned. Furthermore , the Agency referred to earlier medical records dated 1997 in which the applicant was held to be fully able-bodied and in which it was noted that no somatic evidence had been found in support of the applicant ’ s symptoms.

The Administrative Court of Appeal decided to grant leave to appeal. It refused to hold oral hearings and referred to the nature of the case as well as to the fact that oral hearings had been held before the County Administrative Court . In a judgement dated 27 October 2008 , it upheld the decision of the Agency and stated the following reasons. The medical and other evidence in the case did not support that the applicant had been exposed to any such harmful influences in his work which could , with a high degree of plausibility , have caused his problems. His problems could thus – as had been found also by the Agency and the County Administrative Court – not be defined as a work-related injury ( arbetsskada ).

On 4 August 2009 , the Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was denied a fair trial because

(i) the decision to refuse him life annuity had been based on an incorrect statement written by his counterpart ’ s , the Social Insurance Agency ’ s , in-house physician;

(ii) the applicant was denied oral hearings in the Administrative Court of Appeal with the result that the mentioned physician was never heard in person and could not be questioned; and

(iii) the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal was not reasoned and did not touch upon new evidence presented by the applicant.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal dated 27 October 2008 sufficiently reasoned so as to ensure the applicant a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention?