26
LEANDER v. SWEDEN JUGDMENT
(a) where an individual has an arguable claim to be the victim of a
violation of the rights set forth in the Convention, he should have a remedy
before a national authority in order both to have his claim decided and, if
appropriate, to obtain redress (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Silver
and 0thers judgment, Series A no. 61, p. 42, § 113);
(b) the authority referred to in Article 13 (art. 13) need not be a judicial
authority but, if it is not, the powers and the guarantees which it affords are
relevant in determining whether the remedy before it is effective (ibid.);
(c)
although no single remedy may itself entirely satisfy the
requirements of Article 13 (art. 13), the aggregate of remedies provided for
under domestic law may do so (ibid.);
(d)
Article 13 (art. 13) does not guarantee a remedy allowing a
Contracting State’s laws as such to be challenged before a national authority
on the ground of being contrary to the Convention or equivalent domestic
norms (see the James and Others judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A
no. 98, p. 47, § 85).
78.
The Court has held that Article 8 (art. 8) did not in the
circumstances require the communication to Mr. Leander of the information
on him released by the National Police Board (see paragraph 66 above). The
Convention is to be read as a whole and therefore, as the Commission
recalled in its report, any interpretation of Article 13 (art. 13) must be in
harmony with the logic of the Convention. Consequently, the Court,
consistently with its conclusion concerning Article 8 (art. 8), holds that the
lack of communication of this information does not, of itself and in the
circumstances of the case, entail a breach of Article 13 (art. 13) (see, mutatis
mutandis, the above-mentioned Klass and Others judgment, Series A no. 28,
pp. 30-31, § 68).
For the purposes of the present proceedings, an "effective remedy" under
Article 13 (art. 13) must mean a remedy that is as effective as can be having
regard to the restricted scope for recourse inherent in any system of secret
checks on candidates for employment in posts of importance from a national
security point of view. It therefore remains to examine the various remedies
available to the applicant under Swedish law in order to see whether they
were "effective" in this limited sense (ibid., p. 31, § 69).
79. There can be no doubt that the applicant’s complaints have raised
arguable claims under the Convention at least in so far as Article 8 (art. 8) is
concerned and that, accordingly, he was entitled to an effective remedy in
order to enforce his rights under that Article as they were protected under
Swedish law (see the above-mentioned James and Others judgment, Series
A no. 98, p. 47, § 84, and also the Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July
1986, Series A no. 102, p. 74, § 205).
The Court has found the Swedish personnel control system as such to be
compatible with Article 8 (art. 8). In such a situation, the requirements of
Article 13 (art. 13) will be satisfied if there exists domestic machinery