20
LEANDER v. SWEDEN JUGDMENT
(b) Application in the present case of the foregoing principles
52. The interference had a valid basis in domestic law, namely the
Personnel Control Ordinance. However, the applicant claimed that the
provisions governing the keeping of the secret police-register, that is
primarily section 2 of the Ordinance, lacked the required accessibility and
foreseeability.
Both the Government and the Commission disagreed with this
contention.
53. The Ordinance itself, which was published in the Swedish Official
Journal, doubtless meets the requirement of accessibility. The main question
is thus whether domestic law laid down, with sufficient precision, the
conditions under which the National Police Board was empowered to store
and release information under the personnel control system.
54. The first paragraph of section 2 of the Ordinance does confer a wide
discretion on the National Police Board as to what information may be
entered in the register (see paragraph 19 above). The scope of this discretion
is however limited by law in important respects through the second
paragraph, which corresponds to the prohibition already contained in the
Constitution (see paragraph 18 above), in that "no entry is allowed merely
for the reason that a person, by belonging to an organisation or by other
means, has expressed a political opinion". In addition, the Board’s
discretion in this connection is circumscribed by instructions issued by the
Government (see paragraphs 20-21 above). However, of these only one is
public and hence sufficiently accessible to be taken into account, namely the
Instruction of 22 September 1972 (see paragraph 20 above).
The entering of information on the secret police-register is also subject to
the requirements that the information be necessary for the special police
service and be intended to serve the purpose of preventing or detecting
"offences against national security, etc." (first paragraph of section 2 of the
Ordinance - see paragraph 19 above)
55.
Furthermore, the Ordinance contains explicit and detailed
provisions as to what information may be handed out, the authorities to
which information may be communicated, the circumstances in which such
communication may take place and the procedure to be followed by the
National Police Board when taking decisions to release information (see
paragraphs 25-29 above).
56. Having regard to the foregoing, 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.
57. The interference in the present case with Mr. Leander’s private life
was therefore "in accordance with the law", within the meaning of Article 8
(art. 8).