Sweden / Supreme Administrative Court / HFD 2022 Ref. 10 (Case: 6184-19)

Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket) v. S.M.
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen
Type
Decision
Decision date
04/03/2022
  • Sweden / Supreme Administrative Court / HFD 2022 Ref. 10 (Case: 6184-19)

    Key facts of the case:

     

    S.M. applied to the Swedish Tax Agency for a change to her surname. The application was rejected, whereupon S.M. appealed to the Administrative Court, which dismissed the appeal. S.M. appealed before the Court of Appeal, which upheld her appeal. Following this, the Tax Agency appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. S.M. contested the Swedish Tax Agency's appeal and claimed compensation for her legal representative's costs. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the Tax Agency's appeal, holding that the Supreme Administrative Court should decide about S.M.’s right to compensation for legal costs. 

    The case concerns the right to a fair trial regarding compensation for legal costs in the administrative process. The Supreme Administrative Court interpreted the right to a fair trial on the basis of Chapter 2, Section 11 of the Instrument of Government (which is part of the Swedish Constitution), Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 47, 51(1), and 52(3) of the Charter.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The key legal question raised by the Court is how to assess a claim for compensation for legal costs in administrative proceedings and decide whether the claim is to be rejected or to be examined on its merits.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Supreme Administrative Court rejected S.M.'s request for compensation for legal costs. The Supreme Administrative Court held that there was no right to compensation for legal costs in administrative proceedings and that the lack of such a right did not violate the right to a fair trial.  

    In its reasoning, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to several cases from the Supreme Court (Högsta Domstolen), the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union in its interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Administrative Court admits that under some conditions, when an individual is denied compensation for his/her legal costs in a case against a public authority, this may conflict with the right to a fair trial according to the Constitution and (with regard to civil rights or obligations) Article 6(1) of the ECHR.  

    At the same time, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that, according to the current legal framework, the individual is directed to the provisions on tort liability to request compensation for his/her legal costs in administrative proceedings. This means that the individual must initiate a special procedure in order to have his/her legal costs reimbursed. However, the Supreme Administrative Court notes that it appears from the European Court of Human Rights’ practice that such a legal framework is compatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the provisions in the Constitution and Article 47 of the Charter have the same meaning.  

    The Supreme Administrative Court notes that the right to a fair trial does not mean that compensation for legal costs must be granted in the administrative proceedings. Although it would be an urgent matter to give administrative courts an opportunity to award individual compensation for legal costs, it is up to the legislator to decide. Such a legal framework should therefore not be introduced through case law when the right to a fair trial does not require it. 

    Since, in the Court's opinion, no examination on the merits of claims for compensation for legal costs shall be made, such claims shall in the future be rejected. 

    Six judges dissented and held that the lack of a claim for compensation for legal costs must be examined on its merits and not be rejected. The dissenting judges held, inter alia, that the majority’s conclusion that the right to compensation for legal costs can be granted through the provisions on tort liability is not compatible with Swedish constitutional law. 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    12. According to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. It is clear from Article 51(1) that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, as well as to Member States, only when they are implementing Union law. Article 52(3) states that in so far as the Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the ECHR, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention.

    ...

    28. Regarding the interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the Toma case, which concerned the obligation to pay court fees, the Court of Justice of the European Union referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and its interpretation of Article 6(1) ECHR in the Stankiewicz case (Toma, paragraphs 40, 41 and 55).

    ...

    31. The administrative proceeding is designed in such a way that it generally meets the requirements of a fair trial. However, it cannot be excluded that in exceptional situations it would not be compatible with the right to a fair trial if an individual party cannot receive compensation for justifiable legal costs. This applies both in relation to the provision on a fair trial in Chapter 2, Section 11, second paragraph in the Instrument of Government and Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The question at issue could also be relevant in relation to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The question, however, is whether the right to a fair trial also means that the compensation in these situations must be awarded within the framework of the administrative case itself. 

    32. According to the legal framework, the individual has been directed to request compensation for his/her legal costs in administrative proceedings through the provisions on tort liability. (cf. NJA 2010 p. 112, NJA 2013 p. 762 and NJA 2018 p. 1127). Admittedly, this means that the individual must initiate a special procedure in order to have his or her legal costs reimbursed. However, it appears from the practice of the European Court of Human Rights that such a legal framework is compatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR (see for example case Černius and Rinkevičius, where the right to a fair trial was considered to be violated not because there was a lack of a right to compensation for costs in the administrative proceedings which the applicant had won, but for the reason that it would have been too difficult, in a particular way, to obtain compensation for these costs in the form of damages). The provisions of Chapter 2 Section 11, second paragraph, the Instrument of Government and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union may be considered to have the same meaning. Thus, the right to a fair trial does not mean that compensation for legal costs must be granted in the administrative case itself. 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    12. Enligt artikel 47 i Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna ska var och en ha rätt att inom skälig tid få sin sak prövad i en rättvis rättegång och inför en oavhängig och opartisk domstol som har inrättats enligt lag. Av artikel 51.1 framgår att bestämmelserna i stadgan riktar sig till unionens institutioner, organ och byråer samt till medlemsstaterna endast när dessa tillämpar unionsrätten. I artikel 52.3 anges att i den mån stadgan omfattar rättigheter som motsvarar sådana som omfattas av EKMR ska de ha samma innebörd och räckvidd som i konventionen. 

    ...

    28. EU-domstolen har beträffande tolkningen av artikel 47 i Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna i avgörandet i målet Toma, som gällde skyldigheten att betala domstolsavgifter, hänvisat till Europadomstolens praxis och dess tolkning av artikel 6.1 i EKMR i domen i målet Stankiewicz (Toma, punkterna 40, 41 och 55). 

    ...

    31. Förvaltningsprocessen är utformad så att den regelmässigt uppfyller de krav som kan ställas för att en rättegång ska anses rättvis. Det kan emellertid inte uteslutasatt det undantagsvis kan uppkomma situationer där omständigheterna är sådana att det inte skulle vara förenligt med rätten till en rättvis rättegång om en enskild part inte kan få ersättning för befogade rättegångskostnader. Detta gäller i förhållande till såväl stadgandet om rättvis rättegång i 2 kap. 11 § andra stycket regeringsformen som artikel 6.1 i EKMR. Frågeställningen skulle även kunna aktualiseras i förhållande till artikel 47 i Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna. Frågan är dock om rätten till en rättvis rättegång också innebär att ersättningen i dessa situationer måste dömas ut inom ramen för själva förvaltningsmålet. 

    32. Enligt den hittills gällande ordningen har den enskilde varit hänvisad till att begära kompensation för sina rättegångskostnader i förvaltningsmål genom reglerna om skadestånd (jfr NJA 2010 s. 112, NJA 2013 s. 762 och NJA 2018 s. 1127). Denna ordning innebär visserligen att den enskilde måste inleda ett särskilt förfarande för att få sina rättegångskostnader ersatta. Av Europadomstolens praxis framgår dock att en sådan ordning är förenlig med artikel 6.1 i EKMR (se t.ex. avgörandet i målet Černius och Rinkevičius där rätten till en rättvis rättegång ansågs ha överträtts, inte för att det saknades en rätt att få ersättning för kostnader i det förvaltningsmål som klaganden hade vunnit utan för att det hade varit för svårt att i särskild ordning få ersättning för dessa kostnader i form av skadestånd). Bestämmelserna i 2 kap. 11 § andra stycket regeringsformen och artikel 47 i Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna får anses ha samma innebörd. Rätten till en rättvis rättegång innebär således inte att ersättning för rättegångskostnader måste beviljas i själva förvaltningsmålet