LEANDER v. SWEDEN JUGDMENT
17
thereto, the document may not be presented in the judicial proceedings or in the course
of the police investigation; neither, unless warranted by special circumstances, may
the document be presented in the judicial proceedings or in the course of the police
investigation if a professional secret would thereby be disclosed."
As from 1 January 1981, corresponding provisions are to be found in
Chapter 14, sections 5 and 8, of the Secrecy Act 1980.
6. Damages
44. The civil liability of the State is dealt with in Chapter 3 of the Civil
Liability Act 1972 (skadeståndslagen 1972:207).
According to section 2, acts of public authorities may give rise to an
entitlement to compensation in the event of fault or negligence.
However, under section 7, an action for damages will not lie in respect of
decisions taken by Parliament, the Government, the Supreme Court, the
Supreme Administrative Court or the National Social Security Court.
Furthermore, with regard to decisions of lower authorities, such as the
National Police Board, section 4 of the Act provides that such an action will
not lie to the extent that the person concerned could have avoided losses by
exhausting available remedies.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
45. In his application (no. 9248/81) lodged with the Commission on 2
November 1980, Mr. Leander alleged violations of Articles 6, 8, 10 and 13
(art. 6, art. 8, art. 10, art. 13) of the Convention. He complained that he had
been prevented from obtaining a permanent employment and dismissed
from a provisional employment on account of certain secret information
which allegedly made him a security risk; this was an attack on his
reputation and he ought to have had an opportunity to defend himself before
a tribunal.
46. On 10 October 1983, the Commission declared inadmissible the
complaint under Article 6 (art. 6) but declared admissible the complaints
under Articles 8, 10 and 13 (art. 8, art. 10, art. 13).
In its report of 17 May 1985 (Article 31) (art. 31), the Commission
expressed the opinion that there had been no breach of Article 8 (art. 8)
(unanimously), that no separate issue arose under Article 10 (art. 10) with
respect to freedom to express opinions or freedom to receive information
(unanimously) and that the case did not disclose any breach of Article 13
(art. 13) (seven votes to five).
The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the dissenting opinion
contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to the present judgment.