EHRM, 06-06-2006, nr. 62332/00

The first applicant is the daughter of a well-known publisher and anti-Nazi activist, Mr Torgny Segerstedt. From 1958 to 1970 she was a Liberal member of parliament. During that period she was a member of the Standing Committee on the Constitution (konstitutionsutskottet). She has also been Chairperson of the United Nations Association of Sweden. She is a prominent figure in Swedish political and cultural life.

On 22 April 1998, relying on section 9A of the Police Register Act (lag om polisregister m.m., 1965:94), the first applicant made a request to the Minister of Justice for access to her Security Police records. She said that she had become aware of certain material held by the foreign service of the United States of America 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 the United Nations Association of Western Sweden. That information had originated from Sweden and had apparently been communicated by the United States 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 the Soviet Union. Those rumours had started during the 1956 parliamentary elections, but had not prevented her, a couple of years later, being returned to Parliament or sitting on its Standing Committee on the Constitution.

By a decision of 17 June 1998, the Ministry of Justice 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 9A of the Police Register Act, 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 Justice, 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 (40 to 50 years old) could constitute a special reason for a derogation under section 9A of the Act. The Minister further stated:

On 28 April 1999, following an amendment on 1 April 1999 to Chapter 5, section 1(2), of the Secrecy Act 1980 (sekretesslagen, 1980:100), the first applicant submitted a new request to the Security Police to inform her whether or not her name was on the Security Police register.

On 17 September 1999 the Security Police decided to grant the first applicant authorisation to view ‘seventeen pages from the Security Police records, with the exception of information about Security Police staff and information concerning the Security Police's internal [classifications]’. Beyond that, her request was rejected, pursuant to Chapter 5, section 1(2), of the Secrecy Act 1980, 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 4 October 1999 the first applicant went to the headquarters of the Security Police in Stockholm to view the records in question. They concerned three letter bombs which had been sent in 1990 to Sveriges Radio (the national radio corporation of Sweden), to her and to another well-known writer (Hagge Geigert) because of their stand against Nazism and xenophobia and in favour of the humanitarian treatment of refugees in conformity with international treaties ratified by Sweden. The Security Police 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 8 October 1999 the first applicant instituted proceedings before the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm, 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 11 February 2000, the court rejected her request. Its reasoning included the following:

On 28 February 2000 the first applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (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 10 May 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the first applicant leave to appeal.

During the proceedings before the Strasbourg Court, the Government provided the following additional information.

The first applicant was put on file for the first time in 1940. The Security Police were interested in her because of the circles in which she moved and which, during the war in Europe, 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 1976, in part on independent grounds and in part to supplement records entered previously.

Between 1940 and 1976, 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 1976. The documents contained in the file were probably weeded some time before 1999. 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 1980–82. As the first applicant came under a bomb threat in 1990, 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. The Security Police's register was also updated with the new information regarding the first applicant. The 1990 file had also been weeded. It was not destroyed but transferred to the National Archives.

The first applicant was again put on file by the Security Police in 2001, because of a new incident that could have been interpreted as a threat against her.

On 13 December 2002 the Security Police decided of their own accord to release all stored information that had been kept about the applicant until 1976, representing fifty-one pages. No copies of these documents or particulars of their specific content were submitted to the Court.

The second applicant is an established journalist at Göteborgs-Posten, one of the largest daily newspapers in Sweden. He is the author of a number of articles published by that paper on Nazism and on the Security Police that attracted wide public attention.

On 27 April 1998 the Security Police rejected a request by the applicant for access to their quarterly reports on communist and Nazi activities for the years 1969 to 1998, and for information on which authorities had received those reports.

By a letter of 7 June 1999 addressed to the Security Police, the second applicant stated that, having received one of the quarterly reports from the police in Karlskrona, 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 11 November 1999, the Security Police 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:

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 the Court, the Government stated that at the time of the Security Police's decision on 11 November 1999 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 25 November 1999 the second applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm, requesting authorisation to view his file and all other entries made on him by the Security Police. He relied on certain written evidence to the effect that he had been mentioned in the records of the Security Police, notably on the cover page and page 7 of a secret report dating back to the third quarter of 1967 and emanating from Section (byrå) A of the Security Police, that had been released by the Karlskrona police shortly beforehand. The report was entitled ‘Presentation on communist and Nazi activities in Sweden from July to September 1967’. Page 7 contained the following statement:

The second applicant requested, in particular, access to the quarterly reports for the years 1969–98 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 the Security Police 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.

In accordance with standard procedure, the appeal was brought to the attention of the Security Police, who then decided, on 20 December 1999, to release the same two pages of the 1967 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:

After receipt of the above decision, the second applicant had a telephone conversation with Ms Therese Mattsson, an officer of the Security Police (who had signed the decision of 27 April 1998). 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 two pages of the 1967 report.

In his appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal, the applicant pointed out that from the above telephone conversation it emerged, firstly, that since 1969 several hundred thousand personal files in the Security Police's register had been destroyed. Secondly, information about persons whose files had been erased could still be found in the Security Police's archives but could not be searched under names or personal identity numbers. Thirdly, the so-called destruction lists, comprising several hundred thousand names, was all that remained of the erased files. The second applicant complained that the Security Police had failed to search those lists (assuming that the files no longer existed).

On 14 February 2000 the Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, giving essentially the same reasons as the Security Police, with the following further considerations:

On 25 July 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the second applicant leave to appeal.

The third applicant has been a member of the KPML(r) (Kommu-nistiska Partiet Marxist-Leninisterna — Marxist-Leninist (revolutionaries) Party, established in 1970) since 1978. He is an engineer, and since 1976 has been employed by the Ericsson Group.

On 10 April 1999, after the absolute secrecy requirement applying to information held in the records of the Security Police had been lifted on 1 April 1999, the third applicant submitted a request to the Security Police to see all files that might exist on him. By a decision dated 17 November 1999, the Security Police granted him access to thirty pages, two of which could only be read on the Security Police's premises and could not be copied by technical means. Copies of the twenty-eight remaining pages were sent to his home. Twenty-five of these consisted of the decision by the Parliamentary Ombudsperson concerning the above-mentioned matter and the three remaining pages were copies of press articles, two dealing with the applicant and a third, not mentioning him, consisting of a notice from the paper Proletären about a forthcoming 1993 KPML(r) party congress. Thus, all of the said twenty-five pages contained publicly available, not classified, material. The two pages which the third applicant was permitted to see on the Security Police's premises consisted of two security checks concerning him dating from 1980. These were copies of forms used by the FMV (the Försvarets Materialverk, an authority responsible for procuring equipment for the Swedish Army, and with whom the Ericsson Group 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:

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

On 24 November 1999 the third applicant appealed against the decision of the Security Police to the Administrative Court of Appeal, maintaining his request to see all the material that the Security Police 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 14 February 2000, the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected his request, giving the same type of reasons as in the cases of the first and second applicants.

On 13 April 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the third applicant leave to appeal.

The fourth applicant has been a member of the KPML(r) since 1972, and the Chairman of Proletären FF, a sports club which has about 900 members, since 1974. He is renowned within sporting circles in Sweden 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 23 January 1999 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 4 February 1999 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 1 April 1999. On 8 February 2000 the Security Police granted the fourth applicant permission to see parts of his file.

This comprised, firstly, fifty-seven 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 the African National Congress in South Africa. There was information about a much publicised sports project in 1995, where representatives of several sports such as basketball, football and handball had left Sweden for South Africa with the aim of helping young people in black townships. A number of people from within the Swedish 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 Stefan Albrechtson, who had himself been subjected to Security Police surveillance.

The file further included a number of items dealing with sports organisations and events, such as an appeal (in the file from as late as 1993) from all the sports clubs in Gothenburg demanding lower fees for the use of sports fields, a document with the names of some one hundred people, including that of the fourth applicant, and in some instances their telephone numbers. A list of the participants at a spring meeting of the Gothenburg Handball League could also be found.

In addition to the above material, on 28 February 1999 the fourth applicant was granted access to two 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:

On 1 March 2000 the fourth applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal against the decision of the Security Police, requesting to see his file in its entirety and all other records that might have been entered concerning him. He disputed the Security Police's 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 12 May 2000 the Administrative Court of Appeal 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 29 August 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the fourth applicant leave to appeal.

The fifth applicant was a member of the European Parliament from 1999 to 2004, belonging to the GUE/NGL Group and sitting for the Swedish Left Party (Vänsterpartiet).

On 9 December 1997 the fifth applicant filed a request with the Ministry of Defence to have access to the data files and all entries about him that may have been made in the Security Police registers. On 20 January 1998 the Ministry of Defence informed him that the request had been transmitted to the Defence Authority (Försvarsmakten) for decision. On the same date the 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 2’ (Den militära underrättelsetjänsten. Del 2). In this research document, which had previously been released to two journalists, it was stated:

On 19 March 1998 the National Police Authority 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 29 October 1999 the Security Police took a new decision, granting the fifth applicant access to ‘eight pages from the Security Police archives with the exception of information regarding Security Police staff and … internal classifications’, on the condition that the documents be consulted on the Security Police's 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:

On the above-mentioned date the fifth applicant went to the police headquarters in Malmö in order to have access to the eight 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 between 18 January 1963 and 21 October 1975.

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 the Social Democratic Student Association. According to one entry dated 12 May 1969, 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 Norwegian police with his comments in connection with the murder of a Moroccan citizen, Mr Bouchiki, in Lillehammer on 21 July 1973. Finally, the documents contained entries on the opening of a boarding school for adults (folkhögskola) in 1984 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 1960 he had been active in the peace movement in Skåne and was a well-known pacifist who had been imprisoned three times on account of his conscientious objection to military service.

On 29 November 1999 the applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal against the Security Police's 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 15 May 2000 on the same grounds as those given to the other applicants in the present case.

On 27 June 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the fifth applicant leave to appeal.

Clause 1 of the KPML(r) party programme states that the party is a revolutionary workers' party whose goal is the complete transformation of existing society. Clause 4 affirms that the power of the bourgeoisie in society is protected by the State 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 22 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 23 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 28, 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.

Chapter 2, section 1(1), of the Instrument of Government (‘the Constitution’) 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 Chapter 2, section 1(1), may be restricted by law to the extent provided for in sections 13 to 16. Restrictions may only be imposed to achieve a purpose which is acceptable in a democratic 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 (Chapter 2, section 12).

According to Chapter 2, section 13, 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 Chapter 2, section 14, 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’.

Chapter 2, section 3, 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 Chapter 2, section 2, 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 the National Police Board (Rikspolisstyrelsen). The Security Police are engaged in four major fields of activity. Three of them — the upholding of the Constitution, counter-espionage and counterterrorism — fall under the common heading of security intelligence. The fourth area concerns security protection.

The limitations on access in this particular field before 1 April 1999 have been described in detail in Leander (cited above, §§ 41–43). With regard to access to information kept by the Security Police, absolute secrecy was thus the principal rule prior to 1 April 1999. The only exceptions made were for the benefit of researchers. From 1 July 1996 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 the Security Police was abolished by an amendment to Chapter 5, section 1(2), of the Secrecy Act, made at the same time as the Police Data Act came into force on 1 April 1999. According to the amended provision, information concerning the Security Police's intelligence activities referred to in section 3 of the Police Data Act, or that otherwise concerns the Security Police's 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 Parliament, 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 Bill 1997/98:97, p. 68).

A fourth subsection was added to section 1 of Chapter 5 on 1 March 2003, under which a person may upon request be informed of whether or not he or she can be found in the Security Police's files as a consequence of registration in accordance with the Personnel Security Check Ordinance that was in force until 1 July 1996 or corresponding older regulations. However, the government was still of the view that there were in principle no reasons for the Security Police to reveal whether or not there was any information concerning an individual in their files and registers:

The Security Police apply the Secrecy Act directly. There are thus no internal regulations that deal with the issue of access to official documents since that would be in breach of the Secrecy Act. Under Chapter 5, section 1(2), of the Secrecy Act, 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 the Administrative Court of Appeal to go to the Security Police and take part of their files — if any — in every case that had been brought to it. The three 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 the Security Police, the court obtained part of a computer print-out showing that the appellant did not appear in the documents kept by the Security Police.

Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the storage in the Security Police files of the information that had been released to them constituted unjustified interference with their right to respect for private life.

The Court sees no reason to doubt that the applicants' complaints under Article 8 of the Convention about the storage of information and refusal to advise them of the full extent to which information on them was being kept may, in accordance with its consistent case-law (see, for example, Rotaru, cited above, § 67), be regarded as ‘arguable’ grievances attracting the application of Article 13. They were therefore entitled to an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of this provision.

Article 13 guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. It therefore requires the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the ‘competent national authority’ both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligation under this provision. The remedy must be ‘effective’ in practice as well as in law (ibid., § 67).

The ‘authority’ referred to in Article 13 may not necessarily in all instances be a judicial authority in the strict sense. Nevertheless, the powers and procedural guarantees an authority possesses are relevant in determining whether the remedy is effective. Furthermore, where secret surveillance is concerned, objective supervisory machinery may be sufficient as long as the measures remain secret. It is only once the measures have been divulged that legal remedies must become available to the individual (ibid., § 69).

Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the Parliamentary Ombudsperson and the Chancellor of Justice have competence to receive individual complaints and have a duty to investigate them in order to ensure that the relevant laws have been properly applied. By tradition, their opinions command great respect in Swedish society and are usually followed. However, in the above-cited Leander judgment (§ 82), the Court found that the main weakness in the control afforded by these officials is that, apart from their competence to institute criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings, they lack the power to render a legally binding decision. In addition, they exercise general supervision and do not have specific responsibility for inquiries into secret surveillance or into the entry and storage of information on the Security Police register. As it transpires from the aforementioned judgment, the Court found neither remedy, when considered on its own, to be effective within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention (ibid., § 84).

In the meantime, a number of steps have been taken to improve the remedies, notably enabling the Chancellor of Justice to award compensation, with the possibility of judicial appeal against the dismissal of a compensation claim, and the establishment of the Records Board, replacing the former National Police Board. The Government further referred to the Data Inspection Board.

Moreover, it should be noted that, with the abolition of the absolute secrecy rule under former Chapter 5, section 1(2), of the Secrecy Act (when it is deemed evident that information could be revealed without harming the purposes of the register), a decision by the Security Police whether to advise a person of information kept about him or her on their register may form the subject of an appeal to the county administrative court and the Supreme Administrative Court. In practice, the former will go and consult the Security Police register and appraise for itself the contents of files before determining an appeal against a refusal by the Security Police to provide such information. For the reasons set out below, it is not necessary here to resolve the disagreement between the first applicant and the Government as to the scope of the Administrative Court of Appeal's review in her case.

In the circumstances, the Court finds no cause for criticising the similarities in the reasoning of the Administrative Court of Appeal in the applicants' cases.

However, the Court notes that the Records Board, the body specifically empowered to monitor on a day-to-day basis the Security Police's entry and storage of information and compliance with the Police Data Act, has no competence to order the destruction of files or the erasure or rectification of information kept in the files.

It appears that wider powers in this respect are vested in the Data Inspection Board, which may examine complaints by individuals. Where it finds that data is being processed unlawfully, it can order the processor, on pain of a fine, to stop processing the information other than for storage. The Board is not itself empowered to order the erasure of unlawfully stored information, but can make an application for such a measure to the county administrative court. However, no information has been furnished to shed light on the effectiveness of the Data Inspection Board in practice. It has therefore not been shown that this remedy is effective.

What is more, in so far as the applicants complained about the compatibility with Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the storage on the register of the information that had been released to them, they had no direct access to any legal remedy as regards the erasure of the information in question. In the view of the Court, these shortcomings are not consistent with the requirements of effectiveness in Article 13 (see Rotaru, cited above, § 71, and Klass and Others, cited above, § 71) and are not offset by any possibilities for the applicants to seek compensation (see paragraphs 67 and 68 above).

In the light of the above, the Court does not find that the applicable remedies, whether considered on their own or in the aggregate, can be said to satisfy the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of this provision.

The applicants each sought 400,000 Swedish kronor (SEK) (approximately 42,970 euros (EUR)), exclusive of value-added tax (VAT), in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, arguing that they should be awarded the same level of compensation as was offered to Mr Leander following the revelations as to what information had been kept about him on the secret police register and subsequent to the delivery of the Court's judgment in his case.

The Government stressed that the offer to Mr Leander had been made on an ex gratia basis under a special agreement reached on 25 November 1997 between him and them. In their view, the grant of compensation to Mr Leander could not serve as a model for any award to be made in this case. The Government submitted that the applicants had not substantiated their claim and had not shown any causal link between the alleged violation of the Convention and any non-pecuniary damage. In any event, the injury which may have been sustained by the applicants was not of such a serious nature as to justify a pecuniary award in this case. In the Government's view, the finding of a violation would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.

The Court agrees with the Government that the settlement they reached with Mr Leander cannot serve as a model for an award in the present case. However, the Court considers that each of the applicants must have suffered anxiety and distress as a result of the violation or violations of the Convention found in his or her case that cannot be compensated solely by the Court's findings. Accordingly, having regard to the nature of the violations and the particular circumstances pertaining to each applicant, the Court awards under this head EUR 3,000 to the first applicant, EUR 7,000 each to the second and fifth applicants and EUR 5,000 each to the third and fourth applicants.

The applicants sought, firstly, the reimbursement of their legal costs and expenses, in an amount totalling SEK 289,000 (approximately EUR 31,000), in respect of their lawyer's work on the case (115 hours and 35 minutes, at SEK 2,500 per hour).

Secondly, the applicants' lawyer sought certain sums in reimbursement of the cost of his work in connection with a ‘first session’ with the third applicant and a number of other persons.

The Government maintained that costs and expenses relating to other cases were not relevant and should not be taken into account in any award to be made in this case. As to the amount claimed with respect to the present case, the Government did not question the number of hours indicated but considered the hourly rate charged to be excessive. SEK 1,286 (inclusive of VAT) was the hourly rate currently applied under the Swedish legal aid system. In view of the special character of the case, the Government could accept a higher rate, not exceeding SEK 1,800. Accordingly, should the Court find a violation, they would be prepared to pay a total of SEK 208,000 in respect of legal costs (approximately EUR 22,000).

The Court will consider the above claims in the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law, namely whether the costs and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and are reasonable as to quantum.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the applicants' second costs claim. As to the first claim, the Court is not convinced that the hourly rate and the number of hours were justified. Deciding on an equitable basis, it awards the applicants, jointly, EUR 20,000 under this head.

The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.