CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juillet 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. July 1997 Rolf Gustafson v. Sweden - 23196/94 Judgment 1.7.1997 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Rejection by Criminal Damage Compensation Board of applicant's claim for compensation administered under a statutory scheme on account of his failure to adduce any new relevant evidence proving he had been the victim of a crime; applicant only submitted material already considered by domestic court which acquitted alleged perpetrator: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] A.   Applicability Applicant's eligibility to compensation disputed by Board – claim lodged presumed to be genuine and serious – presumption not rebutted by simple fact that applicant had not adduced any new evidence proving he had been the victim of a crime – functions of Board under the Act different from those of the court which acquitted alleged perpetrator of offence – Act gave a right to compensation to claimants who complied with its conditions – that right was of a civil nature since it was intended to confer an individual pecuniary benefit . Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (seven votes to two). B.   Compliance Decision-making procedures of Board complied with the requirements of Article 6 §   1 – applicant could have requested an oral hearing – applicant aware that Board seldom had recourse to oral hearings – may reasonably be considered to have waived his right to an oral hearing – no reasons of expediency which would have required the Board itself to convene the applicant since it had before it his complete case file – reasons given for rejection of claim sufficient in the circumstances. Absence of a right of appeal against Board's decision not a procedural defect since Board complied with the requirements of a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 §   1. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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