case law of the european court of human rights concerning the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3. Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no.116 (Violation of Articles 8, 10 and 13 of the Convention). Use of information kept in a secret police-register when assessing a person’s suitability for employment on a post of importance for national security. C (87) 31 26.3.1987 Press release issued by the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights JUDGMENT IN THE LEANDER CASE In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 26 March 1987 in the Leander case, which concerns Sweden, the European Court of Human Rights held: - unanimously, that there had been no breach of either Article 8 or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; - by four votes to three, that there had been no breach of Article 13 of the Convention. 1 The judgment was read out at a public hearing by Mr. Rolv Ryssdal, the President of the Court. I. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE A. Principal facts In August 1979, Mr. Leander was considered for employment at the Naval Museum in Karlskrona, in the south of Sweden. Part of the Museum's premises were located within an adjacent naval base. As a consequence, appointment to the post sought by Mr. Leander had to be preceded by a security check - a so-called personnel control, which involved consulting information held on a secret register kept by the security police. The procedure to be followed was governed principally by the Personnel Control Ordinance 1969, published in the Swedish Official Journal. In Mr. Leander's case, the outcome of the control was such that his employment was refused, without his having received an opportunity to know and to comment upon the information released to the Navy from the secret police-register. Mr. Leander complained to the Government, requesting annulment of the assessment that he constituted a security risk, a declaration that he was acceptable for employment, access to the information kept on him and an opportunity to comment on this information. The Government rejected the complaint on all points. B. Proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights Mr. Leander's application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 November 1980 and declared admissible on 10 October 1983. 1 The text of the Convention Articles in question is set out in the appendix hereto. 22
Having unsuccessfully attempted to reach a friendly settlement, the Commission drew up a report establishing the facts and stating its opinion as to whether or not the facts found disclosed a breach by Sweden of its obligations under the Convention. In its report of 17 May 1985 2 , the Commission expressed the opinion that there had been no breach of Article 8 (unanimously), that no separate issue arose under Article 10 (unanimously) and that the case did not disclose any breach of Article 13 (seven votes to five). The Commission referred the case to the Court on 11 July 1985. II. SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT 3 A. Alleged violation of Article 8 1. Whether there was any interference with an Article 8 right It was uncontested that the secret police register contained information relating to Mr. Leander's private life. Both the storing and the release of such information, which had been coupled with a refusal to allow Mr. Leander an opportunity to refute it, amounted to an interference with his right to respect for private life as guaranteed by Article 8 § 1. 2. Whether the interference was justified (a) Legitimate aim The aim of the Swedish personnel control system was clearly a legitimate one for the purposes of Article 8, that is the protection of national security. (b) "In accordance with the law" The interference had a valid base in domestic law, namely the Personnel Control Ordinance. The Ordinance, which had been published in the Swedish Official Journal, met the further condition that the "law" in question be accessible to the individual concerned. It is also a requirement in Article 8 that the consequences of the "law" be foreseeable for the individual concerned. This requirement, the Court pointed out, cannot be the same in the special context of secret controls of staff in sectors affecting national security as in many other fields. The Court concluded that in a system applicable to citizens generally, as under the Personnel Control Ordinance, the "law" in question has to be sufficiently clear as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which the 2 The report is available to the press and the public on request to the Registrar of the Court. 3 This summary, which has been prepared by the registry, does not bind the Court. 23
Page 1: DP (2006) CASE LAW CASE LAW OF THE
Page 4 and 5: 12. Murray v. The United Kingdom, j
Page 6 and 7: statements made by an MP subsequent
Page 9: JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF
Page 12 and 13: home and correspondence) and Articl
Page 14 and 15: - the lack of notification of surve
Page 16 and 17: 2. Malone v. The United Kingdom, ju
Page 18 and 19: [see paragraphs 63 and 85 of the ju
Page 20 and 21: This finding removed the need for t
Page 24 and 25: public authorities are empowered to
Page 26 and 27: For further information, reference
Page 28 and 29: B. Proceedings before the Commissio
Page 30 and 31: D. Application of Article 50 1. Pec
Page 32 and 33: 5. Kruslin v. France, judgment of 2
Page 34 and 35: The Court pointed out, firstly, tha
Page 36 and 37: [See paragraph 40 of the judgment a
Page 38 and 39: 13. Miss B., wishing to marry her f
Page 40 and 41: II. THE MERITS A. Alleged violation
Page 42 and 43: 50. In the Government’s opinion,
Page 44 and 45: (b) Documents 59. (a) The applicant
Page 47 and 48: 7. Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment o
Page 49 and 50: een aware of. Moreover, the applica
Page 51 and 52: 8. Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of
Page 53 and 54: 2. In the Court's opinion, the inte
Page 55 and 56: 9. Funke v. France judgment of 25 F
Page 57 and 58: B. Proceedings before the European
Page 59 and 60: 1. "In accordance with the law” T
Page 61 and 62: Matscher (Austrian) , Mr L.E. Petti
Page 63 and 64: 10. Hoffmann v. Austria, judgment o
Page 65 and 66: The Court therefore accepted that t
Page 67 and 68: Article 50 "If the Court finds that
Page 69 and 70: B. Proceedings before the European
Page 71 and 72: In accordance with the Convention,
Page 73 and 74:
3. Mrs Murray was arrested by the A
Page 75 and 76:
4. The level of "suspicion" require
Page 77 and 78:
arrest and detention of persons sus
Page 79 and 80:
13. Z. v. Finland, judgment of 25 F
Page 81 and 82:
the Court have jurisdiction to ente
Page 83 and 84:
(iii) Duration of the confidentiali
Page 85 and 86:
14. Halford v. The United Kingdom,
Page 87 and 88:
2. The office telephones: (i) exist
Page 89 and 90:
15. Anne-Marie Andersson v. Sweden,
Page 91 and 92:
Accordingly, it transpired from the
Page 93 and 94:
In May 1992 the Social Insurance Of
Page 95 and 96:
Accordingly, it appeared from the v
Page 97 and 98:
Procedure Act (“the FCPA”) whic
Page 99 and 100:
Secondly, tapping and other forms o
Page 101 and 102:
18. Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain,
Page 103 and 104:
exercise of his right to respect fo
Page 105 and 106:
19. Lambert v. France, judgment of
Page 107 and 108:
The second requirement which derive
Page 109 and 110:
20. Fressoz and Roire v. France , j
Page 111 and 112:
The Court had in particular to dete
Page 113 and 114:
21. Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. The
Page 115 and 116:
were not in question. Insofar as th
Page 117 and 118:
public order aims pursued by the Go
Page 119 and 120:
Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Presid
Page 121 and 122:
23. Amann v. Switzerland, judgment
Page 123 and 124:
was the surveillance of persons sus
Page 125 and 126:
24. Rotaru v. Romania, judgment of
Page 127 and 128:
As to the Government’s submission
Page 129 and 130:
25. Khan v. The United Kingdom, jud
Page 131 and 132:
26. P.G. and J.H. v. The United Kin
Page 133 and 134:
evidence was heard by the judge alo
Page 135 and 136:
27. Krone Verlag Gmbh & Co. KG v. A
Page 137 and 138:
28. Mikulić v. Croatia, judgment o
Page 139 and 140:
means enabling an independent autho
Page 141 and 142:
30. Christine Goodwin v. the United
Page 143 and 144:
Though the Court did not underestim
Page 145 and 146:
31. M.G v. the United Kingdom, judg
Page 147 and 148:
32. Taylor-Sabori v. the United Kin
Page 149 and 150:
33. Allan v. the United Kingdom, ju
Page 151 and 152:
34. A. v. the United Kingdom, judgm
Page 153 and 154:
in the reporting of parliamentary p
Page 155 and 156:
35. Peck v. the United Kingdom, jud
Page 157 and 158:
The application was lodged with the
Page 159 and 160:
36. Odièvre v. France (application
Page 161 and 162:
child’s, and subsequently the adu
Page 163 and 164:
37. Perry. v. the United Kingdom, j
Page 165 and 166:
The Court noted that the photograph
Page 167 and 168:
The main task of the Court was to a
Page 169 and 170:
The Court noted that the matters co
Page 171 and 172:
The applicant complained under Arti
Page 173 and 174:
On 16 and 26 September 2003 the Pre
Page 175 and 176:
43. Wisse v. France, judgment of 20
Page 177 and 178:
44. Turek v. Slovakia , judgment of
Page 179 and 180:
violation of his right to respect f
Page 181 and 182:
Ms Segerstedt-Wiberg is the daughte
Page 183 and 184:
that background, the Court found th
Page 185 and 186:
the Security Police whether to advi
Page 187 and 188:
parquet, au motif que la présentat
Page 189 and 190:
41. Enfin, la Cour estime que les i
Page 191 and 192:
interception of telecommunications
Page 193 and 194:
egards the monitoring of individual
Page 195 and 196:
5. the counterfeiting of money (Gel
Page 197 and 198:
amended G 10 Act. The federal legis
Page 199 and 200:
sentence, no notification was given
Page 201 and 202:
Moreover, the first applicant had f
Page 203 and 204:
80. Such interferences are justifie
Page 205 and 206:
Law or arbitrariness in its applica
Page 207 and 208:
106. The Court reiterates that when
Page 209 and 210:
measures remained in force for a fa
Page 211 and 212:
applied and data be transmitted if
Page 213 and 214:
(see above, paragraph74). She relie
Page 215 and 216:
151. The Court observes that in the
Page 217 and 218:
48. Panteleyenko v. Ukraine (no. 11
Page 219 and 220:
The Court also noted that the appli
Page 221:
The applicant complained about the
show all

case law of the european court of human rights concerning the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?