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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

public authorities are empowered to resort to this kind of potentially dangerous interference with private life. Taking into account the various limitations imposed on the registration of information, in particular the prohibition on registration merely on the ground of political opinion, and the explicit and detailed provisions governing the operation of the personnel control procedure, the Court found that Swedish law satisfied the requirement of foreseeability. (c) "Necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security" According to well-established principles in the Court's case-law, the notion of necessity implies that the interference must correspond to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The respondent State's interest in protecting national security had to be balanced against the seriousness of the interference with the applicant's right to respect for private life. The Court accepted that, in the circumstances, the State enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in making its assessment. There can be no doubt as to the necessity for the Contracting States to have a system for controlling the suitability of candidates for employment in posts of importance for national security. Nevertheless, in view of the risk that a system of secret surveillance for the protection of national security poses of undermining or even destroying democracy on the ground of defending it, the Court had to be satisfied that there existed in the system at issue adequate and effective guarantees against abuse. The Court noted that the Swedish system was designed to reduce the effects of the personnel control procedure to an unavoidable minimum and that, leaving aside the monitoring affected by the Government themselves, supervision of its proper implementation was entrusted both to Parliament and to independent institutions. The Court attached especial importance, firstly, to the presence of parliamentarians on the police board that authorised the release of the information to the Navy and, secondly, to the supervision effected by the Chancellor of Justice and the Parliamentary Ombudsman as well as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice. The safeguards contained in the Swedish personnel control system were therefore judged sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 8. Having regard to the wide margin of appreciation available to it, the respondent State was entitled to consider that, in the particular case, the interests of national security prevailed over Mr. Leander's individual interests. Accordingly, there had been no breach of Article 8. B. Alleged violation of Article 10 1. Freedom to express opinions It appeared clearly from the provisions of the Personnel Control Ordinance that its purpose was to ensure that persons holding security-sensitive posts had the necessary personal qualifications. This 24
eing so, the right of access to the public service, a right not protected by the Convention, lay at the heart of the issue submitted to the Court. There had accordingly been no interference with Mr. Leander's freedom to express opinions. 2. Freedom to receive information Article 10 does not, in the circumstances such as those in the case at issue, confer on the individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position, nor does it embody an obligation on the Government to impart such information to the individual. Accordingly, there had likewise been no interference with Mr. Leander's freedom to receive information. C. Alleged violation of Article 13 As established in the Court's case-law, the “national authority” referred to in Article 13 need not be a judicial authority in the strict sense. In addition, in the special context of Mr. Leander's case, an “effective remedy" must mean a remedy that is as effective as can be having regard to the restricted scope for recourse inherent in any system of secret surveillance for the protection of national security. Further, although no single remedy may itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so. The Court noted that under Swedish law the applicant could have filed complaints with the Parliamentary Ombudsman or the Chancellor of Justice, who both had to be considered independent of the Government. Although both lacked the power to render legally binding decisions, in practice their opinions were usually followed. There also existed the remedy of complaint to the Government, to which Mr. Leander had had recourse, albeit unsuccessfully. The Court held that even if, taken on its own, the complaint to the Government were not to be considered sufficient, the aggregate of available remedies satisfied the conditions of Article 13 in the particular circumstances of the case. *** In accordance with the Convention, the judgment was delivered by a Chamber composed of seven judges, namely Mr. R. Ryssdal (Norwegian), President, Mr. G. Lagergren (Swedish), Mr. F. Gölcüklu (Turkish), Mr. L.E. Pettiti (French), Sir Vincent Evans (British), Mr. C. Russo (Italian) and Mr. R. Bernhardt (German), Judges , and of Mr. M-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr. H. Petzold, Deputy Registrar. Three judges expressed separate opinions which are annexed to the judgment. *** 25
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 22 and 23: 3. Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 2
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?