CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 29 juin 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                    AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                       Application No. 16792/90                     by Jack GRAFSTRÖM                     against Sweden          The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 29 June 1992, the following members being present:             MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                S. TRECHSEL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                H. DANELIUS           Sir   Basil HALL           Mr.   F. MARTINEZ           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER             Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission.        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 4 August 1989 by Jack GRAFSTRÖM against Sweden and registered on 28 June 1990 under file No. 16792/90;        Having regard to   -     the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      12 June 1991 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 1 and 20 August, 5 and 25 September, 3 October 1991      and 24 January and 17 March 1992;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1931.   He is a marketing and advertising consultant resident at Lidingö.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and apparent from the documents, may be summarised as follows.   Particular circumstances of the case   a.    The 1985 census        In 1985 a compulsory population and habitation census was carried out in Sweden, pursuant to the Act on the 1985 Population and Housing Census (lag 1984:531 om 1985 års folk- och bostadsräkning; hereinafter "the 1984 Census Act").        The population census concerned every person born in 1969 or earlier and resident in Sweden or otherwise obliged to be registered in Sweden at the time to which the requested particulars referred. The following information was requested:   -     the name and the personal identity number of the participant -     whether he had had a gainful employment for at least one hour      during 4-10 November 1985 and, in the affirmative, what kind of      employment -     the designation of his real property -     the parish in which the real property was situated -     his address -     the name of the occupier of the dwelling.        The housing census concerned every permanent occupier of a dwelling in Sweden at the time to which the requested particulars referred. The following information was requested of persons born in 1969 or earlier and permanently resident in a dwelling:   -     his name -     his personal identity number -     his position in the household.        As regards the position in the household the following options were available:   -     "married or living together with somebody" -     "single or other inhabitant" -     "the child of somebody in the household".        Moreover, the participant was to state:   -     the number of rooms in the habitation -     the form of tenure (upplåtelseform) -     whether the dwelling had a kitchen or a kitchenette -     whether it had a bathroom or a shower-room -     whether it had a toilet and whether there were one or more      dwellings in the building.          Property particulars were to be submitted by those who owned, at the time to which the particulars referred, one or more dwelling-houses in Sweden. The following particulars were requested in respect of the real property:   -     the county, municipality and parish where the property was      situated -     the property designation -     the type of property (agricultural or other kind of property) -     the name and address of the owner -     the category of the owner (the State, municipality, municipal      housing company, housing co-operative, private individual or      other kind of owner).        The following particulars were requested in respect of the dwelling-house:   -     the number of the building (byggnadsnummer) -     the housing type (dwelling-house for one household, dwelling-      house for two households, multi-dwelling house, some other kind      of dwelling-house) -     the number of housing units in the house -     the year of construction and the year of conversion -     the main source of heating and the type of fuel used -     the existence of a lift in multi-dwelling houses and dwelling      houses other than those for one or two families.        The following particulars were requested in respect of a housing unit:   -     the number of rooms -     the existence of a kitchen or kitchenette -     the name of the owner of the housing unit -     the number of the housing unit (lägenhetsnummer) -     if the housing unit was not let, the reason why.        The applicant's, his   wife's and their children's names, personal identity numbers and address were already printed on the census form distributed to them.        The applicant, who was obliged to participate in the whole of the census, returned the form without completing it, stating that the questions were of a strictly personal character.        Subsequently, the Central Office of Statistics (Statistiska Centralbyrån; hereinafter "the COS") unsuccessfully requested the applicant to complete the form.        At the request of the COS, the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Stockholm on 7 August 1986 ordered the applicant, under penalty of a fine (vite) of 600 SEK, to submit the information requested. The applicant refused to submit the information.        In the subsequent proceedings before the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm instituted by the COS, the applicant objected to the imposition of the fine and requested a hearing. He argued that he had refused to complete the census form only insofar as the requested particulars went beyond what was required by the civic registration (folkbokföringen).        On 19 November 1986 the Parliamentary Census Commission (folk- och bostadsräkningskommissionen; hereinafter "the Census Commission") remarked on the COS's handling of the information obtained in the 1985 census, having regard to the fact that it had commissioned private companies to process particulars regarding the professions of the participants without notifying the Census Commission in advance.        On 27 November 1986 the County Administrative Court informed the applicant that it considered a hearing unnecessary in the case, having regard to the parties' written submissions. If he were to pursue his request for a hearing the applicant was to inform the Court of the evidence he wanted to invoke at the hearing and what he wanted to show.        In a subsequent letter to the County Administrative Court the applicant accepted that the case could be examined without a hearing provided the Court found a hearing unnecessary.        By a decision of 20 February 1987 the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) rejected the applicant's request for a hearing and ordered the fine to be paid.        The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm which on 21 April 1987 upheld the fine.        The applicant subsequently appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) and requested a hearing.        In an opinion of 24 September 1986 to the Chancellor of Justice (justitiekanslern) the COS argued that according to the 1984 Act and the 1984 Ordinance on the 1985   Housing and Population Census (förordning 1984:532 om 1985 års folk- och bostadsräkning; hereinafter "the 1984 Ordinance") a discretion was conferred on the chief census scrutinising officers (granskningsledarna) when deciding on which census objectors to impose a fine. In any case, the fine was not a criminal sanction, as it would have been relinquished provided the objector had fulfilled his obligations.        The COS continued:        "Under Section 24 of the 1984 Act the COS and the chief      census scrutinising officers were to see to it that the      application of the Act did not lay an unnecessary burden on      the respondents. The imposition of fines was to be a      extreme measure ... and, thus, in the COS's view, to be      applied in a restrictive manner and following an      consideration in casu.      ...      The municipal census officers contacted 80.000 persons out      of which 25.000 subsequently completed the census form.      About 750 persons stated, either orally or in writing,      without referring to any acceptable obstacle ..., that they      refused to participate in the census. They were then      ordered to complete the census form under penalty of a      fine. ..."          The COS further stated that it had been its practice to refrain from further efforts to obtain lacking census information provided the processing of the statistical material had reached a stage where subsequently obtained information could no longer be processed in accordance with its plans.        The COS finally stated:        "It should, however, be pointed out that even information      which has arrived at a late stage and which therefore      cannot be used for the planned production of statistics is      nevertheless of interest. The personal files created on the      basis of the census information form part of the      information which, having regard to its great value, is      being stored and used for research purposes and for      production of statistics carried out on special orders over      a large number of years subsequent to the completion of the      material."        In a further opinion of 16 February 1987 following press allegations of breach of the confidentiality rules governing the handling of the census information the COS referred to its reply to the Census Commission in respect of the commissioning of private enterprises to process professional particulars: no release of information to those companies had taken place in breach of Chapter 1, Sections 5 and 6 of the Secrecy Act. Thus, the companies had not been granted any right to dispose of the released material. However, following the remarks by the Census Commission certain more extensive controls of the handling of the information by the companies commissioned by the COS had been carried out. These had resulted in "only minor remarks" subsequently followed up by the COS.        As regards press allegations that cross-processing of certain information in EDP-files pertaining to census objectors had taken place the COS stated:        "On 29 October 1986 the COS requested that the Data      Inspection Board grant it a permission to create an      "Unidentifiable Register of the Falling-Off in the 1985      census" (avidentifierat register över bortfallet i FOB 85).      The intention was to produce statistics of the      approximately 55.000 persons who had not completed their      census forms. The aim of these statistics was twofold.      Firstly, it is important to find out whether and, if so,      how the falling-off affects the statistics produced on the      basis of the census information. This is important from a      methodological point of view, even if the falling-off is,      seen at large, minor. Statistics of the above kind would      make it possible to assess whether the falling-off as      regards particulars pertaining to sex, age etc. is      different from the particulars of those who did submit the      information.        Secondly, the COS intended to study statistically the      composition of the falling-off, having regard to the      guidelines provided by the COS, i.e. in order to find out      whether fines had been imposed according to the intentions      in the law and these guidelines. ...        The COS intended to obtain information from the Register of      the Total Population (registret över totalbefolkningen)      regarding the 55.000 persons. The information was to be      immediately made unidentifiable... No investigation of      individual particulars was to take place. ...        On 19 November 1986 the Census Commission recommended the      COS not to carry out the processing. On 8 December 1986 the      COS withdrew its request to the Data Inspection Board..."        The COS added that, initially, 187.000 persons had been requested to complete their census forms. Following initial reminders about 80.000 objectors remained.   Out of those, about 25.000 returned their forms. The remaining non-participants were those who, either on the basis of or without a contact with a scrutinising body, were considered to have acceptable reasons for not participating, those who could not be reached, and those who had expressly declared their objection to the census. The last-mentioned group of non-participants was the only one against whom proceedings were instituted with a view to having a fine imposed.        In the COS's view the aim of the imposition of a fine on only a small group of non-participants - that group consisting of persons explicitly refusing to participate - was to exclude risks of laying an unnecessary burden on other non-participants, that is, those who were presumed to have an acceptable reason for not completing the census form, regardless of whether they had been contacted or not, as well as those who could not be reached.        The COS concluded, however, that having regard to the large number of cases under consideration by both municipal organs and the COS it could not be excluded that the distinction between the groups of non-participants had been made wrongly and that the imposition of fines was not in line with the COS's guidelines. Such mistakes, however, were exceptional.        On 15 October 1987 the Chancellor of Justice rendered a decision in which he examined whether the guidelines issued   by the COS to the chief census scrutinising officers and the application of those guidelines violated the principle of equality before the law as enunciated in Chapter 1, Section 9 of the 1974 Instrument of Government (regeringsformen). One petitioner, an author, had argued inter alia that, as he was "a celebrity who had protested loudly against the census, he had been sentenced to pay a fine, this constituting 'détournement de pouvoir'".        The Chancellor found that the application of the provisions regarding fines in the 1984 Act had not violated the Constitution or the 1984 Act itself. In reaching this conclusion he considered that the fine at issue was not a criminal sanction, which according to established Swedish legal doctrine shall be applied in a general way and be directed against everyone having committed a particular offence. Instead, the fine was to be regarded as a means to induce somebody to fulfil an individual obligation. However, from this distinction did not follow that fines such as the present could be imposed in an arbitrary manner. The principle of equality before the law also applied to this kind of sanctions. The Chancellor concluded that he could not the COS had not treated similar cases on an equal basis or that irrelevant considerations had been taken into account when applying the 1984 Act to certain individuals.        As regards the release of information to private data processing companies the Chancellor noted that these had been inspected beforehand so as to ensure "sufficient security as regards inter alia the sensitivity of the integrity and secrecy of the material"; that the Census Commission had not critisised the commissioning as such of private companies; but that security inspections had led to remarks that security measures be taken within the companies.        On 8 March 1989 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.        The census form stated inter alia the following:        " ... The information given on this form will be protected      for 70 years according to the Secrecy Act (sekretesslag      1980:100). Furthermore, the information is protected under      the Data Act (datalag 1973:289). The persons handling the      forms at the municipal authorities and at the COS are      obliged to observe secrecy. No unauthorised persons will      have access to the information. The contents of the form      have been decided after consultation with the Data      Inspection Board (datainspektionen).      ...      The statistics collected in the 1985 census will primarily      be used by municipal planning officers. The census is their      only means to find out how many households there are in the      different parts of the municipality, how many members of a      household are working or how many children there are in the      household. The information is necessary for the assessment      of the extent of child care and the building of dwellings.      Through the census statistics it can also be determined      where those, who reside in a certain part of the      municipality, are working. This improves the planning of      public transport and travel facilities. The information on      how our dwellings are being used will be used inter alia in      order to improve the planning of our future energy supply.        The statistics on professions are of great importance for      studies of inter alia the causality between diseases and      work environment.        The 1985 census [information] will also be used in order to      check the civic registration [information]. ..."   b.    The 1990 census        A subsequent census was carried out at the end of 1990. In the population census the following information was requested: the name and address (already printed on the form); information as to how many hours per week the person concerned, during October 1990, had been gainfully employed; what his daily means of transportation to his work place had been; and his professional and educational background.        In the housing census the following information was requested: the names; the personal identity number; the position in the household with respect to persons born in 1974 or earlier and permanently resident in the house or the flat; the number of rooms with a window in the habitation; in which form the housing was enjoyed; the number of flats in the building; whether the habitation had a kitchen or a kitchenette; and whether there was an elevator on the same floor as the apartment.   Owners permanently resident in a one-family house were further requested to state the period of five or ten years during which the house had become ready for occupation; what kind of heating system was used; whether the house, according to the latest taxation, belonged to a farming-property; whether more than half of the surface of the house was used for other purposes than housing; and whether the house was a row house, a pair house or a link house.        By letter of 6 November 1990 the applicant informed the COS that he would not complete the census form, with the exception of the questions as to his name, address, birth date and the name of his wife.        The 1990 census form stated inter alia the following:        "The information given will be protected under the Act on      the 1990 Population and Housing (lagen om 1990 års folk-      och bostadsräkning), the Secrecy Act and the Data Act".   Relevant domestic law   a.    The 1984 Act        According to Section 1 of the 1984 Act the purpose of the census was, on the one hand, to produce statistics for national planning, research and general information and, on the other hand, to update the civic registration data. According to the preparatory works (Bill no. 1983/84:85, p. 23) the enumeration was intended to be exhaustive.        Under Section 4 personal particulars were to be returned by those born in 1969 or earlier and resident in Sweden, or who otherwise were to be registered in a parochial register in Sweden at the time to which the requested particulars related.        Sections 5, 7 and 9 prescribed what particulars were to be requested in the census form. The reasons for requesting those particulars were stated in the travaux préparatoires (Bill pp. 24-27).        Under Section 8 property particulars were to be returned by those who, at the time to which the requested particulars related, owned one or more dwelling-houses in Sweden.        Under Section 14 the municipalities were to be responsible inter alia for the scrutinising of the collected information and for passing it on to the COS when complete. With this and for other purposes the municipality was to entrust a special census scrutinising body (granskningsorgan).        Section 16 authorised the chief census scrutinising officer or his deputy to request a census participant to submit census particulars within a certain period of time.        A person refusing to fill out and return the census form was to be formally reminded of this obligation (Section 17). A person persisting in his refusal could be ordered to submit the information under penalty of a fine of between 100 and 1.000 SEK. Such an order was to be issued by the County Administrative Board at the request of the COS or the chief census scrutinising officer (Section 18). No appeal lay against the order (Section 19).        Questions regarding the liability to pay a fine were to be considered by the County Administrative Court at the request of the chief census scrutinising officer or the COS (Section 20).        Section 21 authorised the COS to obtain, for the purpose of carrying out the census, the following information from the below mentioned registers:   1.    from the Register of the Total Population kept by the COS:   -     the personal identity number -     the place of residence according to the parochial register      (kyrkobokföringsort) -     the real property on which a person resides according to the      parochial register (kyrkobokföringsfastighet) -     the address -     the relationship in the household (samhörighetsbeteckning) -     the marital status -     the nationality -     the country of birth and the most recent immigration year;   2.    from the Register of Annual Income Statements (kontrolluppgiftsregistret) kept by the COS:   -     the wage earner and employer -     the wages obtained from gainful employment and the period to      which the emoluments related -     the amount of preliminary taxes paid -     the work place number (arbetsställenummer);   3.    from the Register of Income and Wealth (inkomst- och förmögen- hetsregistret) kept by the COS:   -     the income;   4.    from the Central Register of Enterprises (centrala företags- registret) kept by the COS:   -     the name and form of the enterprise -     the number of work places -     the name, number, size, sector affiliation (sektortillhörighet),      location and business branch code (näringsgrenskod) of the      work places;   5.    from the Register of Key Code Areas (registret över nyckelkod- områden) kept by the COS:   -     the area affiliation of the real properties (fastigheters      områdestillhörighet);   6.    from the Property Taxation Registers (register över fastighets- taxeringen) kept by the County Administrative Boards:   -     the affiliation of real properties to a densely populated area      (fastigheters tätortstillhörighet);   7.    from the Register kept by the Central Board of Real Property Data (registret vid centralnämnden för fastighetsdata)   -     the coordinates of real properties;   8.    from the Register kept by the Gothenburg Office for the Taxation of Sailors administered by the National Tax Board (registret vid riksskatteverkets sjömansskattekontor i Göteborg):   -     the persons paying sailor's tax and employed on Swedish vessels.        Under Section 22 electronic data processing (hereinafter "EDP"), for the purposes stated in Section 1, of census information together with other particulars could only take place in accordance with a formal decision or with a permission granted in accordance with the 1973 Data Act (datalag 1973:89; hereinafter "the Data Act").        Under Section 23 the civic registration authorities could make use of census information in order to check information obtained through the civic registration. Such a control could, however, be carried out by means of EDP only in accordance with a formal decision or with a permission granted in accordance with the Data Act.        Both Sections 22 and 23 were to be applied in a restrictive way (Bill pp. 32-33).        According to Section 24 the provisions on confidentiality in the Secrecy Act applied.   b.    The Secrecy Act        The protection under the Secrecy Act prevents documents from being released, and imposes a secrecy obligation on individuals handling the documents.        Under Chapter 9, Section 4 of the Secrecy Act, authorities involved in producing statistics are obliged to keep inter alia census information secret. There shall be no exception to this secrecy rule insofar as the information pertains to personal and economic circumstances attributable to an identifiable individual.        However, information regarding enterprises, deceased persons, information needed for research or pertaining to statistics on personnel and wages, and information in no way attributable to an individual may be released, provided this could clearly not harm anyone to which the information pertains or anyone closely related to such a person.        The decision to release information is made by the authority responsible for storing the information and may be appealed to an Administrative Court of Appeal and further to the Supreme Administrative Court.        Provided it is included in a public document information regarding personal circumstances shall be protected for seventy years and in all other cases for twenty years (Chapter 9, Section 4, para. 2).        Under Chapter 13, Sections 3 and 4, secret information which has been received by an authority as a result of its research or for filing purposes shall be kept secret by that authority.        Chapter 14, Section 8 authorises the Government to release information which should normally be kept secret provided there are very strong reasons for the release. The provision is to be applied very restrictively (Bill No. 1979/80:2, part A, p. 346).   c.    The Data Act        A personal file created from information collected in the 1985 census has to be processed in compliance with the 1984 Act and the Data Act.        In order to preclude the risk of undue encroachment upon privacy the Data Inspection Board may issue regulations to the extent this has not been done by Parliament or by the Government (Sections 6, 6a and 18).        Under Section 10 anyone may request an extract from the census file of information pertaining to himself.        If there is reason to believe that a personal particular in a personal file is incorrect the authority responsible for keeping the file shall immediately take reasonable measures in order to verify the correctness of the particular and, if necessary, correct or delete it from the file (Section 8 para. 1).   d.    The Act on Fines        Under Section 9 of the 1985 Act on Fines (lag 1985:206 om viten) nobody shall be ordered to pay a previously fixed fine, if the purpose for which the fine was imposed has ceased to exist at the time when the court considers the matter. A fixed fine may be modified by the court provided there are special reasons for this, e.g. a change in the person's economic situation or if his failure to fulfil his obligation may be regarded as excusable. However, it is not for the court to assess the appropriateness of the order to fix the fine (Bill 1984/85:96, pp.55-56).   e.    The Act on the Procedure before Administrative Courts        Under Section 9 of the Act on the Procedure before Administrative Courts (förvaltningsprocesslag 1971:291) a hearing may be held before such a court if it is considered to further the investigation or to accelerate the proceedings. If a party requests a hearing before the County Administrative Court or the Administrative Court of Appeal, a hearing shall be held unless it is unnecessary or there are special reasons not to hold it.       COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains that the obligation, under penalty of a fine, to reveal information of a personal character by completing the 1985 and 1990 census forms was an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private and family life. He further complains of the subsequent handling of the information submitted by him in the censuses. He alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.   2.    The applicant complains that the singling out of certain objectors to the 1985 census against whom proceedings were instituted amounted to discrimination because of their political or other opinion. He finally alleges that the information gathered by the censuses as well as the results of voting inquiries (väljarundersökningar) carried out within an election area (valkrets) after each election may be matched and used for persecution or unfair treatment of inter alia political opposition groups, certain regions, municipal districts, or persons of a certain profession or education.   He alleges a violation of Article 14 of the Convention.   3.    The applicant complains that the fine imposed on him amounted to a criminal sanction; that he was refused a hearing and denied the right to defend himself in person and to have witnesses examined on his behalf before a civil court of law; and that those against whom penalty proceedings were instituted were not singled out by a judicial authority but by the COS, at the same time a party in the matter. He alleges violations of Article 6 paras. 1, 3 (c) and 3 (d) of the Convention.   4.    The applicant complains that he did not have an effective remedy before a national authority with regard to the refused hearing and the fact that the trial was not held in public.   He alleges a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.   5.    The applicant complains that he has been unlawfully held guilty of an omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed; that the 1984 Act aimed at preventing public trials and denying him the enjoyment of his rights under Article 6 paras. 2 and 3; and that his obligation under the 1990 census to reveal information about his travelling violated his right to liberty of movement.   He alleges violations of Articles 7 and 17 of the Convention as well as Article 2 paras. 1 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, respectively.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 4 August 1989 and registered on 28 June 1990.        On 25 February 1991 the Commission decided that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government and that the parties should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, limited to the issues under Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention with regard to the 1985 census.        Following an extension of the time-limit the Government's observations were submitted on 12 June 1991. The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 1 August 1991. Additional observations were submitted by the applicant on 20 August, 5 and 25 September, 3 October 1991 and 24 January and 17 March 1992.     THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains that the obligation to participate in the 1985 and 1990 censuses was an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private and family life and that he was ordered to pay a fine for not submitting all particulars requested in the 1985 census. He further complains of the subsequent handling of the census information. He invokes Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, which reads:        "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and      family life, his home and his correspondence.        2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority      with the exercise of this right except such as is in      accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic      society in the interests of national security, public      safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the      prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of      health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and      freedoms of others."   a.    The 1985 census        The Government admit that the obligation to complete the census form could be regarded as an interference with the applicant's rights under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention. They submit, however, that the census was governed by the 1984 Act, which laid down, with sufficient precision, the conditions under which the COS was empowered to collect census information as well as to extract certain particulars from the EDP files listed in the 1984 Act. Both the 1984 Act and the 1984 Ordinance were published in the Swedish Official Journal (Svensk författningssamling).   Thus, the legislation at issue was accessible and its consequences foreseeable to the applicant. Finally, the purpose for which the fine was imposed on the applicant had not ceased to exist when the County Administrative Court considered whether to order him to pay that fine. Thus, the decision was made in accordance with the 1984 Act and the 1985 Act on Fines.        As regards the subsequent handling of the particulars submitted by the applicant the Government refer to Section 22 of the 1984 Act, according to which processing of information obtained in the census together with other information by means of EDP was only to be done for the purposes set out in Section 1 and in accordance with the Data Act. They further refer to Section 23, according to which the civic registration authorities could make use of information regarding places of residence obtained in the census, provided the address in the register was a different one from the one stated in the census form. However, this updating of the civic registration could only take place by means of EDP, provided permission had been given in accordance with the Data Act. Moreover, the Data Inspection Board decided, in application of Section 6, para. 9 of the Data Act, that the census material was to be stored in the National Archives, following which the material may not be released for EDP processing unless the receiver had obtained a licence or a permit from the Data Inspection Board.        The applicant submits that the 1984 Act was only theoretically accessible to the individual, as the Swedish Official Journal is not available to ordinary citizens. Having regard to the difficult substance of the census legislation with, for example, terms such as "cross-processing"   and "EDP files", terms which to most individuals are incomprehensible, there was even less foreseeability than normally.        As regards the subsequent handling of the census information he contends that the purpose of the 1985 census as defined in Section 1 of the 1984 Act is so vague that it authorises almost any research or processing of information in one or several EDP files. It is admitted by the Government that the term "research" is ambiguous. Research using inter alia census information may continue without the individual's knowledge for decades. There are no limitations as to the object for the research. Whilst it may be work injuries it may as well be mental or social handicaps, criminality etc. The definition of the term "national planning" may depend on the particular political ideology, the research may not be scientific and the term "general information" may entail almost anything. He refers to Application No. 10473/83 (Dec. 11.12.85, D.R. 45 p. 121), in which the Commission examined, in another context, the use of personal identity   numbers in Sweden. In that case it was submitted that there existed at the time 50.000 EDP- based files in Sweden. Today the number may be about 100.000. The Data Inspection Board has no factual possibility effectively to control the use of these files. Thus, the vague definition of the purposes of the census enables cross-processing of other, possibly unknown EDP files than those referred to in Section 22 of the 1984 Act.        The applicant emphasises that the Government have given no account of how the census information has been used, who has been granted access to it and for what purposes, and whether these are in line with the aims argued by the Government. However, information has admittedly been released inter alia to municipal organs. Thus, further risks for breaches of the confidentiality are being created.        In any case, the possibility of cross-processing census information with information in case sheets or, generally, of studying diseases or injuries, was almost completely concealed from the census participants when they submitted their particulars. Subsequently, mass media have revealed that extensive surveys of certain population groups on the basis of census information and information in other EDP files have been carried out for allegedly medical research purposes, without the individuals having been informed about them.        Moreover, whilst there exists under Swedish law an obligation to inform a private enterprise of the release of information on its solvency and to whom that information has been released, the 1984 Act does not impose any obligation on the authorities to inform an individual of the release of census particulars or of the purpose of the release, nor may he prohibit the release of such information. Whilst it is also true that a person may check personal particulars stored in an EDP file such a control can only be carried out if he is aware of the existence of a particular file.        The Commission considers that the applicant's obligation to participate in the 1985 census and the subsequent handling of the census particulars constituted an interference with his right to respect for his private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention (cf. No. 9702/82, Dec. 6.10.82, D.R. 30 p. 239).        Consequently, it must be examined whether the interference was justified under the terms of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention. In order to be justified under this provision an interference must satisfy three conditions: it must be "in accordance with the law"; it must pursue one of the aims enumerated in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2); and it must be "necessary in a democratic society" for one or more of those aims (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., Margareta and Roger Andersson judgment of 25 February 1992, para. 73, to be published in Series A as no. 226).        The Commission recalls that the word "law" covers both written and unwritten law. It refers primarily to domestic law and the phrase means that any interference must be based on such law. However, the phrase includes two requirements which go beyond simple compliance with the domestic law. These requirements relate to the quality of the law and can be summarised under the headings "accessibility" and "foreseeability". Moreover, there must be a measure of legal protection in domestic law against arbitrary interferences by public authorities with the rights safeguarded by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1). A law which confers a discretion on the authorities must indicate the scope and manner of exercise of any such discretion with sufficient clarity to afford the necessary protection (see the above-mentioned Margareta and Roger Andersson judgment, para. 75).        The Commission's power to review compliance with domestic law is limited: it is in the first place for the national courts to interpret and apply that law (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., Fredin judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A No. 192, p. 16, para. 50).        The Commission finds that the obligation to participate in the 1985 census was based on Sections 4 and 8 of the 1984 Act which defined with sufficient foreseeability those who were to take part in it. In this respect the 1984 Act conferred no discretion on the COS. The 1984 Act had been published in the Swedish Official Journal and was, thus, accessible to the applicant. Moreover, the sentencing of the applicant to a fine was based on Sections 18 and 20 of the 1984 Act. The Commission, therefore, concludes that the applicant's obligation to participate in the 1985 census was "in accordance with the law" for the purpose of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.        As regards the question whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim the Government submit that the census was carried out for much the same purpose as the 1981 census in the United Kingdom, which was the subject of Application No. 9702/82 (loc.cit.), that is in the interests of the economic well-being of the country. The questions concerning housing particulars had the further aim of protecting the health, as it supplied the authorities with information on the general housing and sanitary standard of Swedish homes. Such information was needed in order for the authorities to properly assess factors likely to have an impact on the public health situation. Furthermore, there is, in the present case, no indication that the imposition of the applicant's fine and his subsequent sentence did not pursue the same purposes as those of the 1984 Act and, thus, the aforementioned aims under Article 8   para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.        The applicant contends that no causality has been shown to exist between censuses carried out in Sweden and the economic well-being of the country, nor has it been shown that the collecting of personal particulars and the cross-processing of such information with already existing EDP files pursued any of the aims stated in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention. In particular, he objects to the Government's argument that the collecting of housing particulars also pursued the aim of health protection in that it supplied the authorities with information concerning health risks related to occupation and work place. The las