CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 mai 2013

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } 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).   © 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