18
LEANDER v. SWEDEN JUGDMENT
AS TO THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 (art. 8)
47. The applicant claimed that the personnel control procedure, as
applied in his case, gave rise to a breach of Article 8 (art. 8), which reads:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right
except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
He contended that nothing in his personal or political background (see
paragraph 17 above) could be regarded as of such a nature as to make it
necessary in a democratic society to register him in the Security
Department’s register, to classify him as a "security risk" and accordingly to
exclude him from the employment in question. He argued in addition that
the Personnel Control Ordinance could not be considered as a "law" for the
purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 8 (art. 8-2).
He did not, however, challenge the need for a personnel control system.
Neither did he call in question the Government’s power, within the limits
set by Articles 8 and 10 (art. 8, art. 10) of the Convention, to bar
sympathizers of certain extreme political ideologies from security-sensitive
positions and to file information on such persons in the register kept by the
Security Department of the National Police Board.
A. Whether there was any interference with an Article 8 (art. 8) right
48.
It is 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 were 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 (art. 8-1).
B. Whether the interference was justified
1. Legitimate aim