CASE OF SEGERSTEDT-WIBERG AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

Violation of Art. 8 (except for the first applicant);Violation of Art. 10 (except for the first applicant);Violation of Art. 11 (except for the first applicant);Violation of Art. 13 (all applicants);Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

András Baka;Antonella Mularoni;Elisabet Fura;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Jean-Paul Costa

The present application was brought by CARDINAL applicants , all of whom are NORP nationals : ( CARDINAL ) PERSON ( born in DATE ) , ( CARDINAL ) Mr Per PERSON ( born in DATE ) , ( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON ( born in DATE ) , ( CARDINAL ) PERSON ( born in DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON ( born in DATE ) . The first applicant lives in GPE , the second applicant lives in GPE and the third and fourth applicants live in GPE , GPE . The fifth applicant lives in GPE , GPE .

The first applicant is the daughter of a well - known publisher and anti - NORP activist , PERSON . From DATE to DATE she was a NORP member of parliament . During that period she was a member of ORG ( konstitutionsutskottet ) . She has also been Chairperson of ORG . She is a prominent figure in NORP political and cultural life .

On DATE , relying on section CARDINALA of LAW ( lag om polisregister m.m . , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , the first applicant made a request to the Minister of Justice for access to her ORG records . She said that she had become aware of certain material held by the foreign service of GPE from which it appeared that since the Second World War she and others had been under continuous surveillance , in particular because of her work for ORG . That information had originated from GPE and had apparently been communicated by GPE to other countries in order to cause her damage and harm her work for the protection of refugees . She also referred to the spreading of rumours that she was “ unreliable ” in respect of GPE . Those rumours had started during the DATE parliamentary elections , but had not prevented her , DATE , being returned to ORG or sitting on its ORG .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG refused her request . It pointed out that absolute secrecy applied not only to the content of the police register but also to whether or not a person was mentioned in it . The government considered that the reasons relied on by the first applicant , with reference to section CARDINALA of LAW , could not constitute special grounds for derogation from the rule of absolute secrecy .

Appended to the refusal was a letter signed by the Minister of ORG , pointing out that neither the first applicant ’s previous access to material indicating that she had been the subject of secret surveillance nor the age of any such information ( DATE ) could constitute a special reason for a derogation under section CARDINALA of the Act . The Minister further stated :

“ As you may be aware , some time ago the government submitted a proposal to ORG as to the manner in which the ORG register should be made more accessible to the public . It may be of interest to you to know that DATE ORG passed the bill , which means that absolute secrecy will be abolished . The bill provides that ORG must make an assessment of the need for secrecy on a case - by - case basis , which opens up new possibilities for individuals to see records that are DATE covered by absolute secrecy . It is first of all historical material that will be made accessible . ”

On DATE , following an amendment on DATE to LAW , section CARDINAL ) , of LAW ( sekretesslagen , CARDINAL ) , the first applicant submitted a new request to ORG to inform her whether or not her name was on the Security Police register .

On DATE the Security Police decided to grant the first applicant authorisation to view “ CARDINAL pages from the Security Police records , with the exception of information about Security Police staff and information concerning ORG internal [ classifications ] ” . Beyond that , her request was rejected , pursuant to LAW , section CARDINAL ) , of LAW , on the ground that further “ information could not be disclosed without jeopardising the purpose of measures taken or anticipated or without harming future operations ” .

On DATE the first applicant went to the headquarters of ORG in GPE to view the records in question . They concerned CARDINAL letter bombs which had been sent in DATE to ORG ( the national radio corporation of GPE ) , to her and to another well - known writer ( PERSON ) because of their stand against NORP and xenophobia and in favour of the humanitarian treatment of refugees in conformity with international treaties ratified by GPE . ORG had gathered a number of police reports , photographs and newspaper cuttings , and had reached the conclusion that there was nothing to confirm the suspicion that there was an organisation behind the letter bombs . That was all the information the first applicant was allowed to view .

On DATE the first applicant instituted proceedings before ORG ( kammarrätten ) in GPE , requesting authorisation to view the entire file on her and other entries concerning her that had been made in the register . In a judgment of DATE , the court rejected her request . Its reasoning included the following :

“ ORG considers that , beyond what emerges from the documents already released , it is not clear that information about whether or not [ the first applicant ] is on file in the Security Police records regarding such activities as are referred to in LAW , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , could be disclosed without jeopardising the purpose of measures taken or anticipated or without harming future operations . ”

On DATE the first applicant appealed to ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) . She submitted that the rejection of her request had left her with the impression of being accused of involvement in criminal activities . In order to counter these accusations , she requested permission to see all files concerning her .

On DATE ORG refused the first applicant leave to appeal .

During the proceedings before ORG , the Government provided the following additional information .

The first applicant was put on file for the first time in DATE . The Security Police were interested in her because of the circles in which she moved and which , during the war in LOC , were legitimately targeted by the security services . In accordance with the legislation in force at the relevant time , additional entries were made in her file until DATE , in part on independent grounds and in part to supplement records entered previously .

DATE , information and documents regarding the first applicant had been collected in the filing system that existed at the time . While those documents were microfilmed , no documents concerning her had been microfilmed since DATE . The documents contained in the file were probably weeded some time before DATE . However , while backup copies on microfiche had been retained , they were not accessible in practice , unless marked as having already been “ deactivated ” .

A new filing system was introduced in DATE . As the first applicant came under a bomb threat in DATE , a new file on her was opened under the new system . It included a reference to the previous file under the old system and the microfilm number required to retrieve the microfiche . ORG register was also updated with the new information regarding the first applicant . The DATE file had also been weeded . It was not destroyed but transferred to ORG .

The first applicant was again put on file by ORG in DATE , because of a new incident that could have been interpreted as a threat against her .

On DATE the Security Police decided of their own accord to release all stored information that had been kept about the applicant until DATE , representing CARDINAL pages . No copies of these documents or particulars of their specific content were submitted to the ORG .

The second applicant is an established journalist at ORG , one of the largest DATE newspapers in GPE . He is the author of a number of articles published by that paper on NORP and on ORG that attracted wide public attention .

On DATE the Security Police rejected a request by the applicant for access to their DATE reports on NORP and NORP activities for DATE , and for information on which authorities had received those reports .

By a letter of DATE addressed to ORG , the second applicant stated that , having received CARDINAL of the DATE reports from the police in GPE , he had become aware that the Security Police had been interested in him ; he therefore wished “ to read [ his ] file and all other documents at [ their ] disposal where [ his ] name might occur ” . In addition , the second applicant made a similar request in respect of his recently deceased father , in accordance with the latter ’s wishes .

In a decision of DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s request in part by replying that his father did not appear in any files or entries in the register and rejected the remainder of his request . It stated :

“ As from DATE the treatment of personal data by ORG of the kind referred to in your request is governed in the first place by LAW ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .

According to LAW , section CARDINAL ) , of LAW ( CARDINAL ) , secrecy applies to information relating to undercover activities under section CARDINAL of LAW or that otherwise falls within ORG remit in preventing or revealing crimes committed against the security of the Realm or in preventing terrorism , if it is not clear that the information may be imparted without jeopardising the purpose of the decision or measures planned or without harm to future activities . The implied starting - point is that secrecy applies as the main rule irrespective of whether the information , for example , appears in a file or emanates from a preliminary investigation or undercover activities .

In the preparatory work for the relevant provision of LAW ( prop . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , it is stated that even information about whether a person is mentioned in a secret intelligence register should be classified in accordance with LAW , LAW . It is further stated that in view of the nature of undercover activities only in special circumstances can there be a question of disclosing information . If there are no such circumstances , the government assume in accordance with the preparatory work that even the information that a person is not registered is classified as secret under LAW .

In the present case the Security Police consider that ... the fact that your father was born in DATE and has recently passed away satisfies the kind of conditions in which information can be disclosed that a person is not registered .

In so far as your request concerns yourself , it is rejected for the reasons given in the preparatory work and the relevant provisions of LAW . ”

According to the applicant , the above reasons given for the rejection of the request made for access to his own records were identical to those given in all other rejection cases .

In their pleadings to ORG , the ORG stated that at the time of the Security Police ’s decision on DATE it had not been possible to find the file owing to the fact that the second applicant had not been the subject of a personal record in connection with the report in issue .

On DATE the second applicant appealed to ORG in GPE , requesting authorisation to view his file and all other entries made on him by ORG . He relied on certain written evidence to the effect that he had been mentioned in the records of ORG , notably on the cover page and page CARDINAL of a secret report dating back to DATE and emanating from Section ( byrå ) A of ORG , that had been released by the GPE police shortly beforehand . The report was entitled “ Presentation on communist and NORP activities in GPE from DATE ” . PERSON contained the following statement :

“ On DATE a meeting was held within the ORG [ ORG ] in GPE . A youngster , probably [ identifiable as ] Mr Per PERSON from ORG , participated as a representative for the VUF [ Världsungdomsfestivalen – World Youth Festival ] . ”

The second applicant requested , in particular , access to the DATE reports for DATE and information regarding the authorities to which those reports had been communicated . He stressed that since he had never been convicted , charged or notified of any suspicion of crime and had never taken part in any illegal , subversive or terrorist activity , refusing him full access to the files could not be justified . The wishes of ORG to maintain secrecy about their work should have been balanced against his interest in clarifying the extent of the violation that he had suffered , not only through their collection of information about him but also through their disclosure of such information .

NORP In accordance with standard procedure , the appeal was brought to the attention of ORG , who then decided , on DATE , to release the same CARDINAL pages of the DATE report referred to above , while maintaining their refusal regarding the remainder of the second applicant ’s initial request . The reasons given were largely the same as in the first decision , with the following addition :

“ In the Security Police archives there are a number of documents which contain information both about different subject matter and individuals . The fact that such documents exist in ORG archives does not mean that all information in the documents is registered and therefore searchable . Information which is not registered can only be retrieved if details have been submitted about the document in which the information is contained . Since you provided us with such details , it was possible for us to find the document you asked for in your request . ”

After receipt of the above decision , the second applicant had a telephone conversation with PERSON , an officer of ORG ( who had signed the decision of DATE ) . According to the applicant , she explained that , when dealing with requests such as his , only documents that were searchable by computer would be verified , which was the reason why the initial request had been rejected in its entirety and access had been granted to the CARDINAL pages of the DATE report .

NORP In his appeal to ORG , the applicant pointed out that from the above telephone conversation it emerged , firstly , that since DATE CARDINAL personal files in ORG register had been destroyed . Secondly , information about persons whose files had been erased could still be found in ORG archives but could not be searched under names or personal identity numbers . Thirdly , the so - called destruction lists , comprising CARDINAL names , was all that remained of the erased files . The second applicant complained that ORG had failed to search those lists ( assuming that the files no longer existed ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal in its entirety , giving essentially the same reasons as the Security Police , with the following further considerations :

“ In connection with the introduction of [ section CARDINAL of LAW ] , the government stated that even the information that a person is not registered by ORG is such that it should be possible to keep it secret under the said provision ( prop . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . According to the government bill , the reason is the following . A person who is engaged in criminal activity may have a strong interest in knowing whether the police have information about him or her . In such a case it could be highly prejudicial to the investigation for the person concerned to be informed whether or not he or she is of interest to the police . It is therefore important for a decision on a request for information from the register not to have to give information on whether the person appears in the register or not . The nature of secret intelligence is such that there can only be disclosure of information in special cases .

ORG finds that it is not clear that information , beyond that which emerges from the disclosed documents , about whether [ the second applicant ] has been the subject of any secret police activity falling under LAW , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , of LAW can be disclosed without jeopardising the purpose of measures taken or anticipated or without harming future operations . ”

On DATE ORG refused the second applicant leave to appeal .

The third applicant has been a member of the KPML(r ) ( GPE - nistiska PERSON – NORP - PERSON ( revolutionaries ) Party , established in DATE ) DATE . He is an engineer , and since DATE has been employed by ORG .

On DATE , after the absolute secrecy requirement applying to information held in the records of ORG had been lifted on DATE , the third applicant submitted a request to ORG to see all files that might exist on him . By a decision dated CARDINAL November CARDINAL , ORG granted him access to CARDINAL pages , CARDINAL of which could only be read on the Security Police ’s premises and could not be copied by technical means . Copies of the CARDINAL remaining pages were sent to his home . CARDINAL of these consisted of the decision by the Parliamentary Ombudsperson concerning the above - mentioned matter and the CARDINAL remaining pages were copies of press articles , CARDINAL dealing with the applicant and a third , not mentioning him , consisting of a notice from the paper PERSON about a forthcoming DATE KPML(r ) party congress . Thus , all of the said CARDINAL pages contained publicly available , not classified , material . The CARDINAL pages which the third applicant was permitted to see on the Security Police ’s premises consisted of CARDINAL security checks concerning him dating from DATE . These were copies of forms used by the ORG ( ORG , an authority responsible for procuring equipment for ORG , and with whom ORG worked ) to request a personnel check ( now known as a register check ) concerning the third applicant . The registered information contained the following text in full :

“ In DATE it was revealed that [ the third applicant ] was / is a member of the Frölunda cell of the GPE ) in GPE . At this time he was in contact with leading members of the GPE ) regarding a party meeting in the FAC town square . ”

The third applicant submitted that the above information about his membership of the PERSON ) was the real reason for the ORG ’s demand that he be removed from his post , although every authority involved would deny this . He pointed out that the ORG ) was a registered and lawful political party that took part in elections .

On DATE the third applicant appealed against the decision of ORG to ORG , maintaining his request to see all the material that ORG might have on him . He disputed , inter alia , that the material released to him revealed that he constituted a security risk . In a judgment of DATE , ORG rejected his request , giving the same type of reasons as in the cases of the first and second applicants .

On DATE ORG refused the third applicant leave to appeal .

The fourth applicant has been a member of the KPML(r ) since DATE , and the Chairman of PERSON , a sports club which has about CARDINAL members , since DATE . He is renowned within sporting circles in GPE and has actively worked with children and young people in sport , both nationally and internationally , to foster international solidarity and facilitate social integration through sport .

On DATE the fourth applicant requested access to information about him contained in the Security Police register , which he suspected had been entered because of his political opinions . On DATE the Security Police rejected his request under the rules on absolute secrecy .

The fourth applicant renewed his request after the abolition of the rule on DATE . On DATE the Security Police granted the fourth applicant permission to see parts of his file .

This comprised , firstly , CARDINAL pages of paper cuttings and various information concerning him and other athletes and sports leaders , their participation in conferences , meetings and tournaments , and about sport and the promotion of social integration through sport , particularly involving international exchanges and solidarity in cooperation with ORG in GPE . There was information about a much publicised sports project in DATE , where representatives of several sports such as basketball , football and handball had left GPE for GPE with the aim of helping young people in black townships . A number of people from within the NORP sports movement whom the fourth applicant had met , many of whom had no connection with any political organisations , had been mentioned in his file . These included , for example , a prominent sports leader , Mr PERSON , who had himself been subjected to ORG surveillance .

The file further included a number of items dealing with sports organisations and events , such as an appeal ( in the file from DATE ) from all the sports clubs in GPE demanding lower fees for the use of sports fields , a document with the names of CARDINAL people , including that of the fourth applicant , and in some instances their telephone numbers . A list of the participants at a DATE meeting of ORG could also be found .

In addition to the above material , on DATE the fourth applicant was granted access to CARDINAL pages from his file , provided that they were read on the Security Police ’s premises and not reproduced by technical means . The pages contained the following information :

“ DATE . F. is a member of the ORG ) and has been working actively for DATE . He is responsible for propaganda in the GPE - Järnbrott group of the GPE ) , CARDINAL DATE . According to an article in Göteborgs Tidningen of DATE , F. is the Chairman of PERSON , DATE . According to an article in NORP / Väster , PERSON is one of the leaders of the youth section of PERSON , CARDINAL DATE . PERSON is number CARDINAL on the GPE ) ballot for the municipal elections in the fourth constituency of GPE . Not elected . ”

On DATE the fourth applicant appealed to ORG against the decision of ORG , requesting to see his file in its entirety and all other records that might have been entered concerning him . He disputed ORG right to store the information that had already been released to him , and stressed that none of it justified considering him a security risk .

On DATE ORG rejected the fourth applicant ’s appeal , basically on the same grounds as those stated in the judgments pertaining to the first , second and third applicants .

On DATE ORG refused the fourth applicant leave to appeal .

The fifth applicant was a member of ORG from DATE , belonging to ORG and sitting for ORG ( Vänsterpartiet ) .

On DATE the fifth applicant filed a request with ORG to have access to the data files and all entries about him that may have been made in the ORG registers . On DATE ORG informed him that the request had been transmitted to ORG ( Försvarsmakten ) for decision . On DATE fifth applicant was informed of another government decision to lift secrecy regarding certain information contained in an attachment B to a report entitled “ The Military Intelligence Service , Part CARDINAL ” ( PERSON underrättelsetjänsten . PERSON ) . In this research document , which had previously been released to CARDINAL journalists , it was stated :

“ CARDINAL document ... contains the information that among the teachers listed in FAC [ Arbetarnas Bildningsförbund – Workers’ ORG ] study programme for the DATE of DATE are sociologists PERSON and PERSON . It was stated that both of them had previously been reported in different contexts . ”

On DATE ORG sent a duplicate letter to the fifth applicant and an unknown number of others , announcing that their requests for access to registered information had been rejected .

On DATE the Security Police took a new decision , granting the fifth applicant access to “ CARDINAL pages from ORG archives with the exception of information regarding ORG staff and ... internal classifications ” , on the condition that the documents be consulted on ORG premises and not copied by technical means . As far as all other information was concerned , the initial rejection of his request remained , with the following standard reasoning :

“ All information about whether or not you are reported in other security cases filed by ORG is subject to secrecy according to LAW , section CARDINAL ) , of LAW . Thus , such information can not be released without jeopardising the purpose of actions taken or planned , or without detriment to future activity . ”

On the above - mentioned date the fifth applicant went to the police headquarters in GPE in order to have access to the CARDINAL pages in question . While under surveillance , he read out loud the text on each page and tape - recorded himself , for later transcription . According to a transcript provided by the applicant , the entries bore various dates DATE and DATE .

The above - mentioned entries concerned mostly political matters such as participation in a campaign for nuclear disarmament and general peace - movement activities , including public demonstrations and activities related to membership of ORG . According to CARDINAL entry dated CARDINAL DATE , the fifth applicant had extreme left - wing leanings and had stated that during demonstrations one should proceed with guerrilla tactics in small groups and if necessary use violence in order to stage the demonstration and achieve its goals . There were also some notes about job applications he had made for university posts and a report he had given to the NORP police with his comments in connection with the murder of a NORP citizen , PERSON , in GPE on DATE . Finally , the documents contained entries on the opening of a boarding school for adults ( folkhögskola ) in DATE in which the fifth applicant had played a major role .

The fifth applicant , for his part , challenged the allegation that he had advocated violence , saying that it was totally against his principles and emphasising that since DATE he had been active in the peace movement in GPE and was a well - known pacifist who had been imprisoned CARDINAL times on account of his conscientious objection to military service .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against ORG refusal to give him access to all the information about him registered in their archives . He disputed their right to store the information to which he had had access . The appeal was dismissed by a judgment of DATE on the same grounds as those given to the other applicants in the present case .

On DATE ORG refused the fifth applicant leave to appeal .

Clause CARDINAL of the GPE ) party programme states that the party is a revolutionary workers’ party whose goal is the complete transformation of existing society . Clause CARDINAL affirms that the power of the bourgeoisie in society is protected by the ORG and rests ultimately on its organs of violence , such as the police , armed forces , courts and jails , supplemented to some extent by private security companies . Clause CARDINAL provides that the socialist transformation of society has to take place contrary to the laws and regulations of bourgeois society , and that for a transitional period a revolutionary dictatorship of the working class will be established . Clause CARDINAL states that the forms of the socialist revolution are determined by the prevailing concrete conditions but that the bourgeoisie will use any means available to prevent the establishment of real people ’s power , and the revolutionary forces must therefore prepare themselves for an armed struggle . According to Clause CARDINAL , socialist democracy does not make any distinction between economic and political power , or between judicial and executive power , but subjects all social functions to the influence of the working people .

Domestic provisions of relevance to the present case are found in a number of instruments . Certain constitutional provisions regarding freedom of opinion , expression and association found in ORG ( regeringsformen ) provide the starting - point . This is also the case with regard to the principle of free access to official documents enshrined in the Freedom of the Press Ordinance ( tryckfrihetsförordningen ) and the restrictions on that freedom imposed by LAW ( sekretesslagen , CARDINAL ) . ORG handling of personal information is regulated by LAW ( polisdatalagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL , which came into force on DATE ) , LAW ( polisdataförordningen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL , which also came into force on DATE ) , LAW ( personuppgiftslagen , CARDINAL ) and LAW ( personuppgiftsförordningen , DATE ) .

LAW , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , of ORG ( “ the LAW ” ) guarantees the freedom to form opinions , the right to express them and the right to join others in the expression of such opinions . The freedoms and rights referred to in LAW , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , may be restricted by law to the extent provided for in DATE . Restrictions may only be imposed to achieve a purpose which is acceptable in a NORP society . A restriction may never exceed what is necessary having regard to its purpose , nor may it be so onerous as to constitute a threat to the free expression of opinion , which is one of the foundations of democracy . No restriction may be imposed solely on grounds of political , religious , cultural or other such opinions ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

According to LAW , LAW , freedom of expression may be restricted , for instance , “ having regard to the security of the Realm ” . However , the second paragraph of the latter provision states that “ [ i]n judging what restraints may be imposed by virtue of the preceding paragraph , particular regard shall be had to the importance of the widest possible freedom of expression and freedom of information in political , religious , professional , scientific and cultural matters ” . The term “ security of the Realm ” covers both external and internal security .

With regard to freedom of association , fewer limitations are provided for . It follows from LAW , section DATE , that it may be restricted “ only in respect of organisations whose activities are of a military or quasi - military nature , or which involve the persecution of a population group of a particular race , skin colour or ethnic origin ” .

LAW , section CARDINAL , provides that no entry regarding a citizen in a public register may be based , without his or her consent , exclusively on that person ’s political opinion . The prohibition is absolute .

Under LAW , section CARDINAL , of the Freedom of the Press Ordinance , everyone is entitled to have access to official documents unless , within defined areas , such access is limited by law .

The Security Police form part of ORG ( PERSON ) . The Security Police are engaged in CARDINAL major fields of activity . CARDINAL of them – the upholding of the LAW , counter - espionage and counterterrorism DATE under the common heading of security intelligence . The fourth area concerns security protection .

The legal basis for the register kept by ORG before DATE has been described in GPE v. GPE ( CARDINAL DATE , § § DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) . For the period thereafter the matter is governed by the DATE LAW and Police Data Ordinance . LAW is a lex specialis in relation to the DATE LAW . ORG own rules of procedure ( arbetsordning ) , which are not public in their entirety , contain more detailed rules on the registration and use of personal information .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( under the heading “ Processing of sensitive personal data ” ) provides :

“ Personal information may not be processed merely on the ground of what is known about the person ’s race or ethnic origin , political opinions , religious or philosophical conviction , membership of a trade union , health or sexual orientation .

If personal information is processed on another ground , the information may be completed with such particulars as are mentioned in the first paragraph if it is strictly necessary for the purposes of the processing . ”

Section CARDINAL reads :

“ The Security Police shall keep a register [ ORG - registret ] for the purposes of :

NORP facilitating investigations undertaken in order to prevent and uncover crimes against national security ;

NORP facilitating investigations undertaken in order to combat terrorist offences under section CARDINAL of the LAW ; or

providing a basis for security checks under LAW [ säkerhetsskyddslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ] . ORG are responsible [ personuppgiftsansvarig ] for the processing of personal data in the register . ”

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ The Security Police ’s register may contain personal information only if :

NORP The person concerned by the information is suspected of having engaged in or of intending to engage in criminal activity that entails a threat to national security or a terrorist offence ;

NORP The person concerned has undergone a security check under LAW ; or

Considering the purpose for which the register is kept , there are other special reasons therefor .

The register shall indicate the grounds for data entry . The government may lay down further regulations on the type of data that may be entered ( LAW ) . ”

The scope of the expression “ special reasons ” in sub - paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of LAW is commented on in the preparatory work in respect of that legislation ( Government PERSON , pp . CARDINAL and pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , where the following points are made in particular . In order to enable ORG to perform the tasks assigned to them by the relevant legislation , it could in certain cases be deemed necessary to register persons also for reasons other than those laid down in sub - paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of section CARDINAL : for instance , persons who are connected with other persons registered under sub - paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of section CARDINAL ; persons who could be the targets of threats ; and persons who could be the object of recruitment attempts by foreign intelligence services . In order for ORG to be able to prevent and uncover crimes against national security , it was necessary to survey and identify potential threats and recruitment attempts . It should also be possible for ORG to identify links between persons who move to GPE after participating in oppositional activities in their home countries . Moreover , it should be possible for ORG to register information about persons who have been smuggled into GPE on assignment from foreign non - democratic regimes with the task of collecting information concerning fellow countrymen . There was a need to update information concerning such informers continuously . Also , information concerning contacts with foreign missions in GPE was relevant in this context .

The Government stated that the fact that an individual ’s name had been included in the register did not necessarily mean that he or she was suspected of an offence or other incriminating activities . Other than the examples already mentioned above from the preparatory work , the Government gave the following illustrations :

– he or she is in contact with someone suspected of a crime ;

– he or she is in contact with personnel from a foreign mission ;

– he or she has attracted the attention of a foreign intelligence service or is used by such a service ;

– he or she is active in a circle that has attracted the attention of a foreign intelligence service ;

– he or she is used by an organisation whose activities are the subject of an investigation regarding threats to security ;

– he or she is the referee of a foreign citizen seeking a visa ;

– he or she has contacted ORG and provided information ;

– he or she is contacted by ORG .

The Government stated that information in respect of the person in question may be needed in order to determine the interests of an entity ( ORG , organisational or individual ) constituting a threat to NORP security , and the extent and development of that threat .

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ The Security Police register may only contain :

– information for identification ;

– information on the grounds for registration ; and

– references to the files where information concerning the registered person can be found . ”

Under section CARDINAL of LAW , the treatment of personal information includes every operation or series of operations carried out with respect to personal information , whether automatic or manual . Examples of such treatment are the gathering , entry , collation , storage , processing , use , release and destruction of personal information . Personal information is defined by the same provision as all kinds of information that relate directly or indirectly to a physical , living person . LAW applies to the processing of personal information that is wholly or partially automated . It also applies to all other processing of personal data if the information is or is intended to be part of a structured collection of personal information that can be accessed by means of a search or compilation according to certain criteria ( section CARDINAL ) .

Documents that contain information are collected in files . Depending on its content , a document may , when necessary , either be placed in a file on a certain individual – a personal file ( personakt ) DATE or in a so - called thematic file ( sakakt ) . It may also be added to both kinds of files .

A thematic registration is done , and a thematic file opened , whenever there is a need to collect and compile documents systematically . The documents may concern a matter or a subject that ORG have a duty to supervise or cover , or on which the Security Police need to have access to relevant information for any other reason . A thematic file may be started in order to collect documents that concern the relations between GPE and organisations . It may also be started in order to collect a certain type of document , for instance a series of reports . It should be observed that thematic registration as such does not mean that names are entered into the Security Police ’s register , even though names may be found in the documents of a thematic file . Thus , a search for a person who has been mentioned in a thematic file can not be done unless , for independent reasons , that person has also been registered in a personal file . Moreover , the name of a person who has been registered personally may occur in a thematic file but may still not show up in a search for the name in the latter file if , for instance , the name in the thematic file lacks relevance for the Security Police .

ORG ) monitors compliance with LAW ( unlike ORG which supervises ORG compliance with LAW ) . ORG is empowered to deal with individual complaints and , if it finds that personal information is not processed in accordance with LAW , it is required to call attention to the fact and request that the situation be corrected . If the situation remains unchanged , the ORG has the power to prohibit , on pain of a fine ( vite ) , the person responsible for the register from continuing to process the information in any other way than by storing it ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

ORG may request a county administrative court to order the erasure of personal information that has been processed in an unlawful manner ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .

Registered information in respect of an individual suspected of committing or of being liable to commit criminal activities that threaten national security or a terrorist offence , shall as a rule be removed DATE after the last entry of information concerning that person was made ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . The same applies to information that has been included in the register for other special reasons connected with the purpose of the register . The information may be kept for a longer period if justified by particular reasons . More detailed rules concerning the removal of information are to be found in the regulations and decisions issued by ORG ( PERSON ) and in ORG own rules of procedure . All documents removed by ORG are transferred to ORG .

The limitations on access in this particular field before DATE have been described in detail in GPE ( cited above , § § CARDINAL ) . With regard to access to information kept by ORG , absolute secrecy was thus the principal rule prior to DATE . The only exceptions made were for the benefit of researchers . From DATE it was also possible to allow exemptions ( dispens ) if the government held the view that there were extraordinary reasons for an exemption to be made from the main rule of absolute secrecy .

The absolute secrecy of files kept exclusively by ORG was abolished by an amendment to LAW , section CARDINAL ) , of LAW , made at the same time as LAW came into force on DATE . According to the amended provision , information concerning ORG intelligence activities referred to in section CARDINAL of LAW , or that otherwise concerns the ORG activities for the prevention and investigation of crimes against national security , or to prevent terrorism , was to be kept secret . However , if it was evident that the information could be revealed without detriment to the aim of measures that had already been decided upon or that were anticipated , or without harm to future activities , the information should be disclosed . When submitting the relevant bill to ORG , the government stressed that the nature of the intelligence service was such that information could only be disclosed in special cases . They presumed that in other cases the fact that a person was not registered would also remain secret ( Government PERSON , p. DATE ) .

A fourth subsection was added to LAW , under which a person may upon request be informed of whether or not he or she can be found in ORG files as a consequence of registration in accordance with ORG that was in force until DATE or corresponding older regulations . However , the government was still of the view that there were in principle no reasons for ORG to reveal whether or not there was any information concerning an individual in their files and registers :

“ The Government acknowledge that it may appear unsatisfactory not to be given a clear answer from ORG as to whether an individual is registered in their files or not . There are , however , valid reasons for ORG not to disclose in certain cases whether a person appears in Security Police records . This point of view was also taken in the preparatory work on LAW ( Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) , where it was stated that a person linked to criminal activities may have a strong interest in knowing whether the police have any information regarding him or her . In such a case , it could be very damaging for an investigation if it were revealed to the person in question either that he or she was of interest to the police or that he or she was not . It is therefore essential that the information whether a person appears [ in the files ] or not may be kept secret . ” ( Government PERSON , pp . CARDINAL )

The Security Police apply LAW directly . There are thus no internal regulations that deal with the issue of access to official documents since that would be in breach of LAW . Under LAW , LAW ) , of LAW , there is a presumption of secrecy , meaning that whenever it is uncertain whether the disclosure of information in an official document is harmful or not , such information shall not be disclosed .

A request for access to official documents kept by the Security Police gives rise to a search to ascertain whether or not the person in question appears in the files . If there is no information , the person who has made the request is not informed thereof and the request is rejected . A few exceptions have been made from this practice in cases where the person concerned has died and the request has been made by his or her children ( as in the second applicant ’s case ) . However , if information is found , the Security Police make an assessment of whether or not all or part of it can be disclosed . It is not indicated whether the disclosed information is all that exists in the files .

The Government have stated that it was standard practice for ORG to go to the Security Police and take part of their files DATE if any – in every case that had been brought to it . The CARDINAL judges examined all the documents and made an assessment of every document that had not been released to the appellant . If the appellant did not appear in the register and files of ORG , the court obtained part of a computer print - out showing that the appellant did not appear in the documents kept by ORG .

ORG ( Registernämnden ) was established in DATE and replaced ORG ( described in DATE of the above - mentioned ORG judgment ) . It is entrusted with the task of determining whether information kept by ORG may be disclosed in security checks , to monitor the Security Police ’s registration and storage of information and their compliance with LAW , in particular LAW ( see section CARDINAL of the LAW prescribing instructions for ORG – förordningen med instruktion för GPE , CARDINAL ) . In order to carry out its supervisory function , the ORG is entitled to have access to information held by ORG ( section CARDINAL ) . It presents an annual report to the government on its activities ( section CARDINAL ) . The report is made public .

Under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW prescribing instructions for ORG , the ORG consists of a maximum of CARDINAL members , including a chairperson and a vice - chairperson , all appointed by the government for a fixed term . The chairperson and the vice - chairperson have to be or to have been permanent judges . The remaining members include parliamentarians . ORG independence is guaranteed by , inter alia , LAW , section CARDINAL , of the LAW , from which it follows that neither ORG nor the government nor any other public authority may interfere with the manner in which ORG deals with a particular case .

Under LAW prescribing instructions for ORG ( DATE ) , the ORG ’s main task is to protect individuals from violations of their personal integrity through the processing of personal data . ORG is competent to receive complaints from individuals . Its independence is guaranteed , inter alia , by LAW , section CARDINAL , of the LAW .

NORP In order to carry out its monitoring function , ORG is entitled to have access to the personal data that is being processed , to receive relevant additional information and documentation pertaining to the processing of personal data and to the safety measures in respect of the processing and , moreover , to have access to the premises where the processing takes place ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The ORG ’s powers in relation to the correction and erasure of registered data are summarised in DATE above .

A personal data representative ( personuppgiftsombud ) has been appointed within ORG with the function of ensuring independently that the personal data controller processes personal data in a lawful and correct manner and in accordance with good practice , and of pointing out any shortcomings . If the representative has reason to suspect that the controller has contravened the provisions on the processing of personal data , and if the situation is not rectified as soon as is practicable after being pointed out , the representative shall notify ORG ( section ORG and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .

The Security Police , ORG and ORG and their activities come under the supervision of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons and the Chancellor of ORG . Their functions and powers are described in GPE ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

Unlike PERSON , the Chancellor of Justice may award compensation in response to a claim from an individual that a public authority has taken a wrongful decision or omitted to take a decision . This power of the Chancellor of Justice is laid down in the GPE concerning the administration of claims for damages against the ORG ( förordningen om handläggning av skadeståndsanspråk mot staten , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . The Chancellor may examine claims under several provisions of LAW ( skadeståndslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , notably LAW , section CARDINAL , pursuant to which the ORG shall be liable to pay compensation for financial loss caused by a wrongful act or omission in connection with the exercise of public authority . Compensation for non - pecuniary damage may be awarded in connection with the infliction of personal injury or the commission of certain crimes , such as defamation ( LAW , section CARDINAL , and LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

A decision by the Chancellor of ORG to reject a claim for damages in full or in part may not be appealed against . The individual may , however , institute civil proceedings against the ORG before a district court , with the possibility of appealing to a higher court . In the alternative , such proceedings may be instituted immediately without any previous decision by the Chancellor . Before the courts , the ORG is represented by the Chancellor .

DATE . Under section CARDINAL of LAW , a person responsible for a register shall pay compensation to a data subject for any damage or injury to personal integrity caused by the processing of personal data in breach of the LAW .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants , Mr Libor Český ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , “ the first applicant ” ) and Mr PERSON ( application no . DATE , “ the second applicant ” ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively , and live in GPE and GPE respectively . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The first round of criminal proceedings

At the beginning of DATE the NORP authorities investigated a case of CARDINAL missing persons . On CARDINAL and DATE a certain PERSON was heard , who stated that he and the applicants had decided to rob these people in the flat of CARDINAL of them . B. did not know how the QUANTITY persons had been killed , but he saw their bodies being removed from the apartment . According to B. the applicants had removed the bodies . CARDINAL seven witnesses PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON B. and PERSON ) were heard in absence of the first applicant and his lawyer . On DATE the applicants were charged with complicity in robbery . On DATE , the second applicant was placed in custody . On DATE ORG ( městský soud ) ordered the first applicant 's arrest . At the same time , a lawyer was appointed to him .

On DATE the first applicant was arrested in GPE and , pursuant to an extradition warrant , he was extradited on DATE . On DATE , he was placed in custody .

On DATE ORG ( městský státní zástupce ) charged the applicants and B. with robbery before ORG . He requested the court to hear CARDINAL witnesses and to consider further evidence taken during the investigation .

On DATE the first applicant 's lawyer requested the hearing of further witnesses and the appointment of a medical expert .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicants and B. of robbery . It sentenced the first applicant to DATE imprisonment , ordered the confiscation of his car and fined him CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) , and sentenced the second applicant to DATE imprisonment . The applicants declined to give evidence . The court found it established that in DATE the applicants and PERSON had killed the QUANTITY persons and stolen CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . It stressed that the first applicant had already been convicted of robbery in DATE .

On DATE ORG ( vrchní soud ) quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case to ORG for further investigations . It considered that ORG had not established all the relevant facts of the case with sufficient certainty .

The second round of criminal proceedings

On DATE the investigator ordered a medical examination of the first applicant 's mental health and appointed CARDINAL experts for that purpose .

On DATE ORG informed the applicants and PERSON that , having re - assessed the charges , he had decided to charge them with murder . At trial , the applicants and PERSON proposed that further evidence be produced .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicants and B. of robbery and sentenced the first applicant as a very dangerous recidivist to DATE imprisonment and ordered that his car be confiscated , and sentenced the second applicant to DATE imprisonment and DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the High Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case to ORG for a new decision on the merits . It considered that the lower court had not properly assessed the evidence , had not established all the relevant facts and had based its judgment on evidence which had not been produced before it . ORG determined the evidence which had to be assessed .

The third round of criminal proceedings

On DATE ORG again convicted the applicants and B. of robbery and sentenced the first applicant to DATE imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of his car , again sentencing PERSON to DATE imprisonment and the second applicant to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed this judgment and sent the case back to the first instance , ordering that the case be heard by another chamber . It found , inter alia , that ORG had not respected ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and had practically copied its previous judgment .

The fourth round of criminal proceedings

In a judgment of DATE comprising CARDINAL pages , ORG convicted the applicants and PERSON of theft of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , sentenced the first applicant as a very dangerous recidivist to DATE imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of his car , the second applicant to DATE imprisonment and PERSON to DATE imprisonment .

The court heard CARDINAL witnesses and read out statements of CARDINAL other witnesses ( including ( PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) 's decision of DATE . Among other things , the court did not take into account the first CARDINAL hearings of PERSON held on CARDINAL and DATE .

At the trial , the first applicant requested that CARDINAL further witnesses be heard to clarify his financial situation at the relevant time . The court rejected his request , stating that the proposed witness evidence would not affect its view of the applicant 's guilt , its finding being based on completely different and more relevant facts .

The second applicant argued that the bank strips , with which wads of banknotes handled by him and the first applicant had been bundled together , had disappeared from the case file . The court accepted that there were some gaps in the file , which contained CARDINAL pages . It was , however , of the opinion that this did not affect the state of the evidence , which had been based on the witness statements and other material evidence .

On DATE ORG , having held a hearing on CARDINAL and DATE , quashed the first - instance judgment and decided anew finding the CARDINAL accused guilty of theft of MONEY CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . It stated that the first - instance court had established all the relevant facts of the case and had assessed the evidence in an exhaustive and convincing manner . Nevertheless , it considered that the first applicant and PERSON could not be classified as extremely dangerous recidivists within the meaning of LAW referring in this respect to a significant delay which had elapsed between the crime and the conviction of the CARDINAL accused , which reduced the degree of danger the crime presented for society . It therefore reduced the applicants ' prison sentence to DATE .

On DATE the second applicant filed a constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) alleging a violation of LAW ( right to liberty ) , LAW , LAW and LAW , DATE and DATE ( presumption of innocence , defence rights and right to remain silent ) of LAW ( Listina základních práv a svobod ) .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional appeal in which he alleged a violation of LAW ( right to liberty ) and LAW ( right to remain silent ) of the LAW .

On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG ( GPE PERSON ) found the applicants ' appeals clearly unsubstantiated .

On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG rejected the applicants ' requests for re - opening of the criminal proceedings . On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG dismissed the applicants ' complaints against these CARDINAL decisions .

On DATE the Minister of ORG filed a complaint in the first applicant 's favour , alleging a breach of law ( stížnost pro porušení zákona ) . The Minister 's complaint was dismissed by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies as regards the length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG 's decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL).²