28
LEANDER v. SWEDEN JUGDMENT
on the National Police Board who consider each case where release of
information is requested (see paragraph 29 above).
83. To these remedies, which were never exercised by Mr. Leander,
must be added the remedy to which he actually had recourse when he
complained, in a letter of 5 February 1980 to the Government, that the
National Police Board, contrary to the provisions of section 13 of the
Personnel Control Ordinance, had omitted to invite him to comment, in
writing or orally, on the information contained in the register (see paragraph
15 above). The Government requested the opinion of the Board in this
connection; whereupon Mr. Leander was given the opportunity to reply,
which he did in a letter of 11 March 1980. In its decision of 14 May 1980,
which covered also Mr. Leander’s complaints of 22 October and 4
December 1979, the Government, that is the entire Cabinet, dismissed Mr.
Leander’s various complaints (see paragraphs 14 and 16 above).
The Court recalls that the authority referred to in Article 13 (art. 13) need
not necessarily be a judicial authority in the strict sense, but that the powers
and procedural guarantees an authority possesses are relevant in
determining whether the remedy is effective. There can be no question
about the power of the Government to deliver a decision binding on the
Board (see paragraph 77 above).
84. It should also be borne in mind that 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 surveillance for the protection
of national security (see paragraphs 78-79 above).
Even if, taken on its own, the complaint to the Government were not
considered sufficient to ensure compliance with Article 13 (art. 13), the
Court finds that the aggregate of the remedies set out above (see paragraphs
81-83) satisfies the conditions of Article 13 (art. 13) in the particular
circumstances of the instant case (see, mutatis mutandis, the abovementioned Klass and Others judgment, Series A no. 28, p. 32, § 72).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that there was no violation of Article
13 (art. 13).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Holds unanimously that there has been no breach of Article 8, or Article
10 (art. 8, art. 10);
2. Holds by four votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 13
(art. 13).