CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 septembre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 78 September 2005 Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden (dec.) - 62332/00 Decision 20.9.2005 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Storage of personal information in security police records, and refusal to impart full extent of personal information in such records: admissible   The five applicants are affiliated to political parties of the left, namely the liberal and communist parties. Some of them are anti-Nazi activists engaged in humanitarian projects. As they suspected that information on them had been entered in the security police records because of their political views, they submitted requests to the Security Police to have access to the police records on them. Until April 1999 absolute secrecy applied to such records, and the requests which the applicants made prior to this date were thus rejected. Following changes to the legislation in this area, which opened the possibility to access personal files on a case-by-case assessment, the five applicants were granted access to certain parts of the information recorded on them. Following requests for full disclosure, the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants were released additional information, but certain parts could only be read within the Security Police’s premises and could not be copied by technical means. Access to additional information was denied to the first applicant. They all brought proceedings before the Administrative Court of Appeal against the refusal of the Security Police to grant full access to the files, as well as questioning the lawfulness of the storage by the Security Police of information which did not justify considering them as a security risk. The court rejected the requests, finding that full disclosure of the files might jeopardise future measures or operations by the police. Leave to appeal against the refusals was denied. In the case of the third applicant, who worked for a private company that undertook projects on behalf of National Defence, his employer asked him to resign following a request by a military authority which had looked at his security police files. The applicant was eventually transferred from his position and no longer considered for promotions. The applicants allege that the storing of the information that was released to them, the refusal to grant them access to all information and the adverse effects which keeping such information had had on their respective careers, had breached their right to respect for private life. They also complain that it had entailed a restriction of their political freedoms under Articles   10 and 11, as well as of a breach of Article 13. Admissible under Articles 8, 10, 11 and 13.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes