CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 janvier 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 82 January 2006 Elli Poluhas Dödsbo v. Sweden - 61564/00 Judgment 17.1.2006 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Refusal to permit widow to transfer her late husband’s urn to a family burial plot in a different city: no violation   Facts : The applicant, her husband and five children lived in Fagersta. Following the husband’s death in 1963 his ashes were buried in a family grave at a local cemetery.   In 1980 the applicant moved to Västerås (70 kilometres away) to be closer to her children. In 1996 she requested the cemetery authorities to allow the transfer of her husband’s urn to her family burial plot in Stockholm, where her parents had been buried and where she herself intended to be buried after her death (Stockholm is situated 180   kilometres from Fagersta). The applicant submitted in addition that she had no connections to Fagersta any more, that all her children agreed to the removal of the ashes and that she was sure that her husband would not have objected either. Her request was refused by the authorities out of respect for the notion of “a peaceful rest” under the Funeral Act. A county administrative board upheld the refusal, as did a county administrative court.   Leave to appeal was refused by an administrative court of appeal and by the Supreme Administrative Court.   Following the applicant’s death in 2003 she was buried at the family burial plot in Stockholm. Under domestic law, when a person dies, his or her wishes concerning cremation and burial should, as far as possible, be followed. Once remains or ashes have been buried, moving them from one place to another is in principle not allowed. However, permission to that end may be granted if special reasons exist and if the proposed new location has clearly been stated. In several judgments rendered in 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court interpreted the notion of “special reasons” restrictively. Law : The Court did not consider it necessary to determine whether the refusal to allow the transfer of the ashes of the applicant’s husband involved the notions of “family life” or “private life”, and assumed that there had been an interference, within the meaning of Article   8(1). In the present case, on the one hand, the removal of the urn appeared, in practical terms, to be quite easy and no public health interests seem to be involved. On the other hand, there were no indications that the applicant’s husband had not been buried in accordance with his wishes, on the contrary. In principle, it had to be assumed that account had been taken of any such wish when the burial took place. Moreover, at the relevant time, although having no connection to Stockholm, the applicant’s husband, the applicant, or both together, could have chosen that he be buried with his in-laws at the family burial plot in Stockholm, established in 1945. Instead, in 1963 when the applicant’s husband had died, the family burial plot in Fagersta had been established and he had been buried there, in the town where he had lived for 25 years.   Finally, nothing had prevented the applicant from having her final resting place in the same burial ground as that of her husband, albeit in Fagersta, the town where she had continued to live until 1980, 17 years after her husband’s death. In sum, the Swedish authorities had taken all relevant circumstances into consideration and balanced them carefully; the reasons given by them for refusing the transfer of the urn had been relevant and sufficient; and the national authorities had acted within the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them in such matters. Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes