Leander v Sweden (1987) App No 9248/81, 9 EHRR 433 (ECtHR)

Mr Leander was denied employment at a Swedish Naval Museum due to secret police records classifying him as a security risk. He was never told the contents of these records. The Court found Sweden's personnel control system lawful and necessary for national security, with adequate safeguards against abuse.

Facts

Torsten Leander, a Swedish carpenter, commenced temporary employment at the Naval Museum at Karlskrona in August 1979. The museum was adjacent to a restricted military security zone. A personnel control was conducted under the Personnel Control Ordinance 1969, which resulted in information from a secret police register being released. Based on this information, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy decided that Mr Leander could not be accepted for the position as he would require access to the Naval Base. Mr Leander was never informed of the contents of the secret information recorded about him, despite his requests. His complaints to the Government were rejected in May 1980.

Applicant’s Background

Mr Leander had previously been a member of the Swedish Communist Party and an association publishing a radical review. He had been active in the soldiers’ union during military service and had travelled to Eastern Europe. His only criminal conviction was a minor fine for tardiness during military service.

Issues

The Court was asked to determine whether Sweden had violated:

• Article 8 (right to respect for private life) through the storing and release of secret information without allowing Mr Leander to refute it
• Article 10 (freedom of expression and to receive information)
• Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)

Judgment

Article 8

The Court accepted that the storing and release of information, coupled with the refusal to allow Mr Leander to refute it, constituted an interference with his right to respect for private life. However, the interference was found to be justified.

On whether the interference was ‘in accordance with the law’, the Court stated:

the Court finds that Swedish law gives citizens an adequate indication as to the scope and the manner of exercise of the discretion conferred on the responsible authorities to collect, record and release information under the personnel control system.

On necessity, the Court recognised the State’s wide margin of appreciation:

There can be no doubt as to the necessity, for the purpose of protecting national security, for the Contracting States to have laws granting the competent domestic authorities power, firstly, to collect and store in registers not accessible to the public information on persons and, secondly, to use this information when assessing the suitability of candidates for employment in posts of importance for national security.

The Court found adequate safeguards existed, including parliamentary oversight, the Chancellor of Justice, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Article 10

The Court found no interference with freedom of expression, as the measures concerned access to public service rather than restricting expression. Regarding freedom to receive information:

Article 10 does not, in circumstances such as those of the present case, 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.

Article 13

The Court held (by four votes to three) that the aggregate of remedies available—complaints to the Chancellor of Justice, Parliamentary Ombudsman, and Government—satisfied Article 13 requirements, given the inherent limitations of secret security systems.

Implications

This case established important principles regarding state security measures and individual rights. The Court affirmed that states enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in matters of national security, but must provide adequate safeguards against abuse. The judgment recognised that in secret surveillance contexts, effective remedies need only be ‘as effective as can be’ given inherent limitations. The dissenting judges emphasised the need for independent authorities with binding decision-making powers in such sensitive areas.

Verdict: The Court held unanimously that there was no breach of Article 8 or Article 10. By four votes to three, it held there was no breach of Article 13.

Source: Leander v Sweden (1987) App No 9248/81, 9 EHRR 433 (ECtHR)