LEANDER v. SWEDEN JUGDMENT
25
It appears clearly from the provisions of the Ordinance that its purpose is
to ensure that persons holding posts of importance for national security have
the necessary personal qualifications (see paragraph 24 above). This being
so, access to the public service lies at the heart of the issue submitted to the
Court: in declaring that the applicant could not be accepted for reasons of
national security for appointment to the post in question, the Supreme
Commander of the Armed Forces and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy
took into account the relevant information merely in order to satisfy
themselves as to whether or not Mr. Leander possessed one of the necessary
personal qualifications for this post.
73. Accordingly, there has been no interference with Mr. Leander’s
freedom to express opinions, as protected by Article 10 (art. 10).
B. Freedom to receive information
74. The Court observes that the right to freedom to receive information
basically prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving
information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him. Article 10
(art. 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.
75. There has thus been no interference with Mr. Leander’s freedom to
receive information, as protected by Article 10 (art. 10).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 (art. 13)
76. The applicant finally alleged a breach of Article 13 (art. 13), which
reads:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated
shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
Firstly, he complained of the fact that neither he nor his lawyer had been
given the right to receive and to comment upon the complete material on
which the appointing authority based its decision (see paragraph 62, no.
(vi), above). He also objected that he had not had any right to appeal to an
independent authority with power to render a binding decision in regard to
the correctness and release of information kept on him (see paragraph 42
above).
Both the Government and the Commission disagreed with these
contentions.
77. For the interpretation of Article 13 (art. 13), the following general
principles are of relevance: