LEANDER v. SWEDEN JUGDMENT
5
"Accepted in accordance with the assessment of the [Commander-in-Chief of the
Navy], on condition that L. does not, through access to the Museum’s premises or
through his work, obtain insight into secret activities."
The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy added that, according to his
information, the Director of the Museum required the person employed in
the post in question to have free access to, and freedom to circulate in, the
Naval Base and that accordingly, on 21 September 1979, he had taken the
decision not to accept the applicant.
In his reply to the Government, the Supreme Commander of the Armed
Forces stated, inter alia:
"However, the employment of Mr. Leander during this time, 15 August - 1
September 1979, did not involve any access to the Naval Base. The Commander-inChief of the Navy has said that he does not oppose such employment. The Director of
the Naval Museum has, however, affirmed the requirement that Mr. Leander should
have access to the Naval Base.
In view of the above and the fact that, if Mr. Leander was given access to the Naval
Base, he would have access to secret installations and information, the Commanderin-Chief of the Navy decided not to accept the applicant.
When dealing with the present case, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy has
entirely followed existing regulations concerning the assessment of personal
qualifications from a security point of view.
...
Like the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, the Supreme Commander of the Armed
Forces considers that Mr. Leander may properly be employed by the Naval Museum
provided that the holder of the appointment does not require access to the Naval
Base."
The opinion of the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces was
accompanied by a secret annex, containing the information on Mr. Leander
released by the National Police Board (rikspolisstyrelsen). This annex was
never communicated to the applicant and has not been included in the
material submitted to the Court.
15. In a letter of 5 February 1980, the applicant raised new grievances
before the Government. These concerned the decision of the National Police
Board not to exercise its powers under section 13 of the Personnel Control
Ordinance to communicate to him the information released on him (see
paragraph 31 below). The applicant requested that the Government should,
before taking a decision on his request of 22 October 1979, give him the
right to be apprised of and to comment upon the information thus released
by the Board.
On this matter, the Government sought the opinion of the Board. In its
reply of 22 February 1980, the Board proposed that the applicant’s
complaints be dismissed. It added: