PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 60437/08) against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Swedish national, Mr Mats Eriksson (“the applicant”), on 13 November 2008.

The applicant was represented by Mr R. Helenius, a lawyer practising in Jönköping. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms G. Isaksson, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the administrative courts had failed to hold an oral hearing in proceedings relating to his request for life annuity.

On 2 February 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Trosa.

In 1989 the applicant was diagnosed with type II diabetes and vascular spasms. While riding a bicycle on work-related business on 21 January 2000, the applicant suffered a heart attack which caused him to fall. About two weeks later, he also suffered a cerebral stroke. On 2 April 2001 he reported the accident to the Social Insurance Office (Försäkringskassan) of the County of Södermanland which granted him early retirement pension as from 1 December 2001.

The applicant also requested the Social Insurance Office to grant him life annuity (livränta) but, on 28 April 2003, the Social Insurance Office rejected the request. It found that the applicant’s medical problems could not be regarded as work-related and that his ability to support himself by working was not sufficiently reduced as a result of the accident. According to medical opinions given on 6 August and 17 September 2002 by Dr B.M., the Social Insurance Office’s own medical doctor (försäkringsläkare), the main reason for the applicant’s inability to work was diabetes, from which he had suffered for 16 years at the time of the accident, and some other medical conditions from which he suffered and which together had caused the heart attack and the cerebral stroke. According to him, it was not probable that work-related factors, such as stress, had contributed to the deterioration of the applicant’s physical condition.

By letter dated 6 May 2003 the applicant’s legal counsel appealed to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Södermanland, claiming that the applicant had a right to a life annuity since his illnesses had been work-related. At times he had had up to three different jobs, each one of which, had been hectic and thereby created a difficult and very stressful situation. He produced a medical opinion by Dr. C-G.E., dated 5 February 2003, which stated that known risk factors for arteriosclerosis and heart attack were, among other factors, diabetes, smoking and high blood pressure. Recently, the feeling of severe stress, especially over a long period of time, had been shown to be an element that increased the risk of developing heart and vascular disorders as well. The interaction between various risk factors was complex but, in general, the more risk factors were present, the higher the risk of suffering a heart attack or developing vascular disorders. In the applicant’s case, the physician considered that few risk factors were present and that it was highly probable that his stressful work situation had contributed to the heart attack and cerebral stroke.

On 18 March 2004 the County Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. In reaching its decision, the court had regard to the medical certificates by Dr B.M., which established no link between the work situation and the applicant’s illness, as well as to the medical opinion by Dr. C-G.E. which suggested that there existed such a link. On the basis of these and the parties’ submissions, the court found that the applicant had been exposed to stress in his work but that the causal link between this fact and the applicant’s medical condition could not be established with a sufficiently high degree of probability.

By letter dated 14 April 2004 the applicant, represented by the same legal counsel, appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm, maintaining his claims. By letter dated 3 February 2005 the applicant submitted to the court a further medical opinion given by Dr E.H. on 23 December 2004 which supported the opinion given by Dr C-G.E.

By letter dated 28 April 2005 the applicant requested that the Administrative Court of Appeal hold an oral hearing in the case without, however, giving any reasons for his request. He repeated the request on 14 June 2005 and specified that he wanted Dr C-G.E., Dr E.H., Dr V.B. and Dr B.M. to be heard before the court about the existence of a causal link between his work and his injury. In another letter, dated 13 September 2005, he invoked Article 6 of the Convention in relation to his right to an oral hearing and clarified that he wanted an oral hearing to deal with his case as a whole, including the question of leave to appeal.

On 23 November 2005 the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that there was no reason to hold one to decide on the question of leave to appeal. The court asked the applicant to complete his written submissions.

On 31 August 2006 the applicant submitted to the Administrative Court of Appeal a new medical opinion, dated the same day, by Dr P.S. and Dr B.C-D. This medical opinion also supported the opinion given by Dr C‑G.E that there was a causal link between the applicant’s work and his injury. On 12 October 2006 the applicant requested again that an oral hearing be held in the case and that all the medical doctors who had submitted opinions be heard to prove that there was a causal link between his work and his injury. He also wanted to be heard himself about his work situation and the stressful environment.

On 7 February 2007 the Administrative Court of Appeal refused the applicant leave to appeal. It noted that leave to appeal should be granted if it was important for the guidance of the application of law that an appellate court consider the appeal, if reasons existed to amend the lower court’s conclusion, or if there were otherwise extraordinary reasons to entertain the appeal. As the court found that no such grounds were at hand, it refused leave to appeal.

By letter dated 4 April 2007 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten), reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before the lower instances and requesting the court either to refer the case back to the Administrative Court of Appeal for an oral hearing or to hold an oral hearing itself. He reiterated that he wanted to be heard himself and also to hear as witnesses the medical doctors whose opinions he had submitted to the court. Having been asked by the court, the applicant specified in his letter dated 10 June 2007 that he wanted the court to hold an oral hearing even if it was for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant him leave to appeal. He again invoked Article 6 of the Convention.

On 29 October 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the request for an oral hearing as it found no reason to hold one in order to decide on the question of leave to appeal. The applicant was requested to complete his written submissions.

On 27 May 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. It noted that leave to appeal was granted if the case was a precedent case or if serious material or procedural mistakes were involved. As this was not so in the present case, the court found no reason to try the case on its merits.