BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.) - 10404/10 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 603 (21 May 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/603.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 603 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 163
May 2013
Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.) - 10404/10
Decision 21.5.2013 [Section V]
Article 35
Article 35-1
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Effective domestic remedy
Failure to seek compensation in the domestic courts or through the Chancellor of Justice for a Convention violation: inadmissible
Facts - In his application to the European Court the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of procedural unfairness in proceedings before the administrative courts for a life annuity. The respondent Government argued that his application was inadmissible as he had failed to seek compensation in the domestic courts or through the Chancellor of Justice, as permitted by domestic law.
Law - Article 35 § 1: The European Court had considered in its judgment in Eriksson v. Sweden (no. 60437/08, 12 April 2012) that, since the Supreme Court’s judgment of 3 December 2009 (NJA 2009 N 70), there had been an effective remedy in Sweden capable of affording redress through compensation in respect of alleged Convention violations. It saw no reason to come to a different conclusion in the instant case as Article 6 of the Convention had already been the subject of several Supreme Court cases and the Chancellor of Justice had already dealt with the specific question of a lack of reasoning in judgments. The applicant’s contention that the only appropriate redress would have been a rehearing of his case was rejected as it was clear from the European Court’s case-law that it accepted compensation as suitable redress. As to the choice of remedy, applicants could choose which of the two potentially effective remedies available in Sweden - lodging a complaint with the Chancellor or suing the State before the ordinary courts - to take. Since the applicant had failed to use either remedy his application was inadmissible.
Conclusion: inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies).
