CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT
49
intelligence. If so, the Inspectorate verifies whether the interception and
treatment of the information was in accordance with law. The Inspectorate
must notify the individual that an investigation has been carried out. A
request can be made by legal and natural persons regardless of nationality
and residence (see paragraph 46 above). The Inspectorate has the power to
decide that the collection of intelligence shall cease or that the intelligence
shall be destroyed (paragraph 36).
172. Like in the Kennedy case, the Court is therefore satisfied that the
remedy offered by the Foreign Intelligence Inspectorate is not dependent on
prior notification. Although the Inspectorate may decide on the
discontinuation of intelligence collection or the destruction of intelligence,
unlike in Kennedy, it may not order compensation to be paid. However, with
regard to compensation per se, the Court is mindful that there is an effective
remedy in Sweden in that compensation from the State can be sought
through the Chancellor of Justice or the domestic courts (see paragraph 53
above).
173. The Inspectorate examines if the individual’s communications have
been intercepted using signals intelligence. However, that examination is
limited to the question whether or not the collection of intelligence was in
accordance with law. The individual cannot obtain information whether his
or her communications have actually been intercepted, only if there has
been any unlawfulness. As pointed out by the applicant, the Inspectorate
does not give any reasons for its conclusions reached on the issue of
lawfulness. In contrast, the Court noted in Kennedy that the publication of
the tribunal’s legal rulings enhanced the level of scrutiny afforded to secret
surveillance activities in the United Kingdom (see Kennedy, cited above,
§ 167). Moreover, as the decision of the Inspectorate is final, an individual
who is not satisfied with the response from the Inspectorate may not seek
review by, for instance, making an appeal to a court.
174. As to the remedies available directly through the FRA, the Court
makes the following observations. The FRA is, upon request, required to
inform an individual whether personal data concerning him or her has been
processed. A request may be submitted once per calendar year. If such data
has been treated, the FRA must specify what information on the individual
is concerned, from where it was collected, the purpose of the treatment and
to which recipients or categories of recipients the personal data has been
reported (see paragraph 47 above). The Court notes that such an obligation
is well-tailored to lower suspicion and concern among the general public
that secret surveillance measures are being abused.
175. However, like the notification requirement, there is no obligation
on the FRA to give information if secrecy applies to it. While the FRA’s
decisions may be appealed against to the Administrative Court in
Stockholm (see paragraph 49 above), the Court has to assume that, like with
other aspects of the FRA’s activities, strict secrecy applies and, therefore, no