LEANDER v. SWEDEN JUGDMENT
23
The parliamentary members of the Board, who include members of the
Opposition (see paragraph 29 above), participate in all decisions regarding
whether or not information should be released to the requesting authority. In
particular, each of them is vested with a right of veto, the exercise of which
automatically prevents the Board from releasing the information. In such a
case, a decision to release can be taken only by the Government themselves
and then only if the matter has been referred to them by the National Police
Commissioner or at the request of one of the parliamentarians (see
paragraph 29 above). This direct and regular control over the most
important aspect of the register - the release of information - provides a
major safeguard against abuse.
In addition, a scrutiny is effected by the Parliamentary Committee on
Justice (see paragraph 40 above).
The supervision carried out by the Parliamentary Ombudsman constitutes
a further significant guarantee against abuse, especially in cases where
individuals feel that their rights and freedoms have been encroached upon
(see paragraphs 38-39 above).
As far as the Chancellor of Justice is concerned, it may be that in some
matters he is the highest legal adviser of the Government. However, it is the
Swedish Parliament which has given him his mandate to supervise, amongst
other things, the functioning of the personnel control system. In doing so, he
acts in much the same way as the Ombudsman and is, at least in practice,
independent of the Government (see paragraphs 36-37 above).
66. The fact that the information released to the military authorities was
not communicated to Mr. Leander cannot by itself warrant the conclusion
that the interference was not "necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security", as it is the very absence of such
communication which, at least partly, ensures the efficacy of the personnel
control procedure (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Klass and
Others judgment, Series A no. 28, p. 27, § 58).
The Court notes, however, that various authorities consulted before the
issue of the Ordinance of 1969, including the Chancellor of Justice and the
Parliamentary Ombudsman, considered it desirable that the rule of
communication to the person concerned, as contained in section 13 of the
Ordinance, should be effectively applied in so far as it did not jeopardise the
purpose of the control (see paragraph 31 above).
67. The Court, like the Commission, thus reaches the conclusion that
the safeguards contained in the Swedish personnel control system meet the
requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 8 (art. 8-2). Having regard to the
wide margin of appreciation available to it, the respondent State was entitled
to consider that in the present case the interests of national security
prevailed over the individual interests of the applicant (see paragraph 59
above). The interference to which Mr. Leander was subjected cannot