PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 17202/04) 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 Freddie Andersson (“the applicant”), on 9 May 2004.

The applicant was represented by Ms Mia Andersson. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Anna Erman from 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 occupational injury compensation.

By a decision of 3 June 2008, the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the lack of an oral hearing before the administrative courts to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of this complaint at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1).

The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Ingarö.

In September 1996 the applicant submitted an occupational injury report (arbetsskadeanmälan) to the Social Insurance Office (Försäkringskassan –hereinafter “the Office”) of the County of Stockholm in which he requested that his lower back and hip joint problems be considered work-related, thereby making him eligible for occupational injury compensation (arbetsskadeersättning).

In a decision of 13 December 1996, the Office noted that the applicant had carried out heavy work as a slaughterhouse worker until 1982 when he had moved to the USA and worked on renovating walls. In 1988 the applicant had informed the Office that he could no longer carry out his work because of his hip joint problems. Thus, in June 1988, he had been granted early retirement pension on the ground that he suffered from lumbar spondylosis and coxarthritis (a degenerative joint disease of his lower back and right hip). On the basis of the above, the Office considered that it was possible that the applicant’s work in the USA had harmed him and, since it could only consider injuries which had occurred while working in Sweden, it could not examine the request.

Upon request by the applicant, the Office, on 17 February 1997, reconsidered its previous decision but decided not to change it.

The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm, claiming that his injuries had been caused by his work in Sweden. He stated that he had created a company in the USA to import Swedish fibreglass fabric but that, in order to get his business going, he had had to include measuring, installing and painting. However, since he already had pain in his hip joint and lower back, he had not been able to carry out the work and had sold the company. He further added that he had worked in slaughterhouses between 1948 and 1980, which had involved very heavy work in difficult conditions. In support, he submitted a medical certificate from Dr S.R., who had been working as a company doctor for more than 20 years in the food industry and had been the applicant’s company doctor between 1967 and 1980. According to Dr S.R., the applicant’s injuries were work-related, noting that he had carried animal carcasses and heavy pieces of meat up and down stairs, causing extreme strain on the back, hips, knees and ankles. Moreover, the work had been carried out in humid, draughty premises and with slippery floors.

On 15 September 1997 the County Administrative Court repealed the Office’s decision and sent the case back for renewed examination. It found that the applicant’s injuries could well have been caused by his work in Sweden and that the Office had the duty to evaluate whether this was the case.

To prepare the case, the Office requested the opinion of one of its own medical doctors (försäkringsläkare), Dr S.H., as to whether the applicant’s injuries were work-related. The doctor, who was a specialist in orthopaedics, gave his opinion on 23 September 1997. It was based on the information in the Office’s case-file and stated essentially the following.

It appeared from other medical certificates that the applicant had been healthy until his hip joint problems began in 1985-86. In 1988 his right hip and lower back had been x-rayed, which showed that the hip joint had degenerative alterations, whereas the lower back was not remarked on, having regard to the applicant’s age. In July 1996 the applicant had undergone a hip joint operation. In Dr S.H.’s opinion, the applicant suffered from moderate arthritis in his hip joint, which had developed slowly from the age of 55 and thus was age-related, not work-related. In this respect, he claimed that there was no general support in scientific literature for the proposition that elements in the working environment could cause arthritis.

On 14 January 1998, the Office decided that the applicant could not be granted occupational injury compensation as it considered that his injuries were not related to his work in Sweden. In reaching its decision, it had put much emphasis on the opinion of Dr S.H., since he was a specialist in orthopaedics.

The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court, maintaining that he was entitled to occupational injury compensation due to his injuries, which were clearly work-related. In support of his appeal, he submitted a medical certificate by Dr P.H., specialist in orthopaedic surgery, who had treated the applicant. According to Dr P.H., the applicant had suffered from serious joint arthritis of the right hip when he first met him during the spring of 1996, which had led to the operation in July 1996. As the illness did not run in the applicant’s family and it had developed at an earlier age in the applicant than was normal, Dr P.H. considered that it was probable that the injury had been caused by the applicant’s heavy work in the slaughterhouse. Moreover, in his view, the applicant’s work in the USA had in no way affected the development of the arthritis.

The Office disputed the appeal and submitted that Dr P.H.’s opinion did not clearly show that the applicant’s work at the slaughterhouse had caused his injuries.

In May 1998 the applicant contacted the County Administrative Court and requested that an oral hearing be held in his case so that he could describe his working situation. However, by decision of 25 May 1998, the court rejected the request as it found that it was unnecessary with regard to the nature of the subject matter. The applicant was given three weeks in which to finalise his submissions.

On 29 June 1999, when asked by the County Administrative Court, the applicant renewed his request for an oral hearing but sent on the same day a fax to the court explaining that he did not request an oral hearing.

On 29 June 1999 the County Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. It did not question that his work had been of a very heavy nature. However, it noted that it had to be relatively widely accepted that certain factors in the working environment, with a high level of probability, could cause the relevant injuries. In the present case, the court found that the applicant had failed to show that there was a high level of probability that his work at the slaughterhouse had caused his hip joint arthritis.

The applicant made a further appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm, maintaining his claims and adding that he wanted an oral hearing to be held so that he could prove his case, inter alia, by describing his working conditions in the slaughterhouse and developing the medical investigation. In this respect, he referred to Article 6 of the Convention and noted that he would later specify whom he wanted to call as expert witnesses.

Furthermore, the applicant submitted another medical certificate which supported his claim that his injuries were work-related. It was written by Dr H.B., specialist in orthopaedics, who had examined the applicant. In the certificate, Dr H.B. stated that studies existed which indicated a connection between heavy physical work and the development of hip joint arthritis. There were also studies which showed that the risk of developing hip joint arthritis increased with the number of tons that a person lifted during his working life. Having regard to the applicant’s background, his work at the slaughterhouse and the relatively young age at which he had developed the arthritis, Dr H.B. concluded that there were much stronger reasons in support of a connection between the applicant’s injuries and his work than against it.

The Office disputed the applicant’s appeal and the new medical certificate, submitting that the appeal should be rejected.

On 28 June 2001 the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s request for an oral hearing as it considered that, with regard to the nature of the subject mater, it was unnecessary to hold a hearing. The court granted the applicant two weeks to finalise his submissions in the case.

Subsequently, on 24 September 2001, the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. Having regard to the medical investigation in the case, in particular the opinion of Dr S.H., as well as the time aspect (the applicant had stopped working in 1980 at the slaughterhouse but only been operated on in 1996), the court found that it had not been shown, with a high level of probability, that the work had caused the applicant’s injuries.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) and requested that an oral hearing be held. He stressed that the lower courts had failed to hold a hearing, despite his express request and in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. Moreover, he submitted that a hearing was necessary in order for him to describe his working conditions at the slaughterhouse and to be able to question specialists to clarify his injuries and their causes.

On 16 July 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for an oral hearing as it considered that there was no need for a hearing before it decided on whether or not to grant leave to appeal. It gave the applicant three weeks to submit any additional comments.

On 10 November 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal.