Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 132

July 2010

Albertsson v. Sweden (dec.) - 41102/07

Decision 6.7.2010 [Section III]

Safeguards against abuse

Request for waiver in domestic proceedings of Government Agent’s immunity under the European Agreement relating to Persons Participating in Proceedings of the European Court: request rejected

Facts – A witness who had submitted affidavit evidence on behalf of the first applicant in the present case brought a private prosecution for slander in the domestic courts against the Agent for the Government, Mr Ehrenkrona, after the latter had submitted observations to the European Court alleging that the witness had criminal convictions for offences involving dishonesty. Mr Ehrenkrona claimed immunity under domestic legislation giving effect to the European Agreement relating to Persons Participating in Proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights signed in Strasbourg on 5 March 1996 ( ETS no. 161 ). The witness made a request to the Court under Article 5 § 2 (a) of the European Agreement for a waiver of Mr Ehrenkrona’s immunity on the grounds that such immunity would impede the course of justice and that its waiver would not prejudice the purpose for which the immunity was intended.

Law – The Court stressed the need to ensure free and open communication in its proceedings and to protect those who pleaded before it from being sued or prosecuted for their statements. In view of the importance of this objective for the proper conduct of its proceedings, the Court would waive such immunity only in exceptional circumstances, for example where statements were made which were manifestly excessive or plainly irrelevant. Mr Ehrenkrona’s statement had been made in his capacity as Agent of the Government in the proceedings before the Court and raised the question of the credibility of the author of an affidavit that had been submitted in support of the first applicant’s case. It was justifiable to question the credibility of evidence invoked in a case and the terms of Mr Ehrenkrona’s statement could not be said to have exceeded the limits of what was permissible to that end. It followed that a waiver of his immunity would prejudice the purpose of that immunity within the meaning of Article 5 § 2 (a) of the European Agreement.

Conclusion : request for waiver of immunity rejected (unanimously).

© 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