iniasklaidos teis IX Paskaita urnalisto altinio apsauga 1

Žiniasklaidos teisė IX Paskaita Žurnalisto šaltinio apsauga 1

Žurnalisto šaltinio apsauga Kas yra žurnalisto šaltinis? Kodėl svarbu jį išsaugoti paslaptyje? Kaip jo apsaugą užtikrina LT Konstitucija, įstatymai? • Kaip jo apsauga užtikrina EŽTT jurisprudencija? • • 2

Visuomenės informavimo įstatymas • 8 straipsnis. Informacijos šaltinio paslaptis • Viešosios informacijos rengėjas, skleidėjas, jų dalyvis, žurnalistas turi teisę išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį, neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio, išskyrus atvejus, kai informacijos šaltinį teismo sprendimu atskleisti būtina dėl gyvybiškai svarbių ar kitų ypač reikšmingų visuomenės interesų, taip pat siekiant užtikrinti, kad būtų apgintos asmenų konstitucinės teisės ir laisvės ir kad būtų vykdomas teisingumas. 3

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • LR KT 2002 -10 -23 nutarimas „Dėl viešojo asmens privataus gyvenimo apsaugos ir žurnalisto teisės neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio“ 4

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • • • • • 1. Visuomenės informavimo įstatymo 8 straipsnyje nustatyta: "Viešosios informacijos rengėjas, platintojas, viešosios informacijos rengėjo ir (ar) platintojo savininkas, žurnalistas turi teisę išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį, neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio. " Pareiškėjas prašo ištirti, ar Įstatymo 8 straipsnis neprieštarauja Konstitucijos 29 straipsnio 1 daliai, nes, jo manymu, ginčijamame Įstatymo straipsnyje įtvirtinta viešosios informacijos rengėjo, platintojo, viešosios informacijos rengėjo ir (ar) platintojo savininko, žurnalisto teisė išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį, neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio reiškia, kad minėtų asmenų padėtis, palyginti su kitais asmenimis, yra privilegijuota. 2. Konstitucijos 29 straipsnyje nustatyta: "Įstatymui, teismui ir kitoms valstybės institucijoms ar pareigūnams visi asmenys lygūs. Žmogaus teisių negalima varžyti ir teikti jam privilegijų dėl jo lyties, rasės, tautybės, kalbos, kilmės, socialinės padėties, tikėjimo, įsitikinimų ar pažiūrų pagrindu. " 5

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • • • 5. Konstitucinė laisvė nekliudomai ieškoti, gauti ir skleisti informaciją bei idėjas yra vienas iš atviros, teisingos, darnios pilietinės visuomenės, demokratinės valstybės pagrindų. Ši laisvė - svarbi įvairių Konstitucijoje įtvirtintų asmens teisių ir laisvių įgyvendinimo prielaida, kadangi asmuo gali visavertiškai įgyvendinti daugelį savo konstitucinių teisių ir laisvių tik turėdamas laisvę nekliudomai ieškoti, gauti ir skleisti informaciją. Konstitucija garantuoja ir saugo visuomenės interesą būti informuotai. 6

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • 6. Konstitucijoje įtvirtintos vertybės sudaro darnią sistemą, tarp jų yra pusiausvyra. Pagal Konstituciją negalima nustatyti tokio teisinio reguliavimo, kuriuo įstatymais įtvirtinant informacijos laisvės įgyvendinimo garantijas būtų sudaromos prielaidos pažeisti kitas konstitucines vertybes, konstitucinių vertybių pusiausvyrą. Konstitucinis Teismas 1999 m. kovo 16 d. nutarime konstatavo, jog Konstitucijos saugomų vertybių sandūroje turi būti rasti sprendimai, užtikrinantys, kad nė viena iš tokių vertybių nebus paneigta ar nepagrįstai apribota. 7

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • 7. Iš Konstitucijos 25 straipsnio bei kitų Konstitucijos nuostatų, įtvirtinančių ir garantuojančių žmogaus laisvę ieškoti, gauti ir skleisti informaciją, kyla ir žiniasklaidos laisvė. Pagal Konstituciją įstatymų leidėjas turi pareigą įstatymu nustatyti žiniasklaidos laisvės garantijas. 8

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • 8. Pabrėžtina, kad įstatymu įtvirtindamas žurnalisto teisę išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį, neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio kaip vieną iš žiniasklaidos laisvės garantijų, įstatymų leidėjas turi paisyti Konstitucijoje įtvirtinto atviros, teisingos, darnios pilietinės visuomenės imperatyvo, konstitucinio teisinės valstybės principo, nepažeisti Konstitucijoje įtvirtintų asmens teisių ir laisvių. Įstatymais negalima nustatyti tokio teisinio reguliavimo, kuriuo įtvirtinant žurnalisto teisę išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį, neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio būtų sudaromos prielaidos pažeisti Konstitucijoje įtvirtintas vertybes. 9

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • Taigi Įstatymu nustatydamas žurnalisto teisę išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį, neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio, įstatymų leidėjas negali nustatyti tokio teisinio reguliavimo, kuriuo būtų sudarytos prielaidos neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio net ir tada, kai demokratinėje valstybėje informacijos šaltinį atskleisti yra būtina dėl gyvybiškai svarbių ar kitų ypač reikšmingų visuomenės interesų, taip pat siekiant užtikrinti, kad būtų apgintos asmens konstitucinės teisės ir laisvės, kad būtų vykdomas teisingumas, nes informacijos šaltinio neatskleidimas galėtų sukelti daug sunkesnes pasekmes negu jo atskleidimas. Taip būtų pažeista Konstitucijos saugomų vertybių pusiausvyra, konstitucinis atviros, darnios pilietinės visuomenės imperatyvas, konstitucinis teisinės valstybės principas. 10

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • 9. Pažymėtina, kad įstatymu įtvirtinus žurnalisto teisę išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį, neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio ir kilus klausimui, ar turi būti atskleista informacijos šaltinio paslaptis, kiekvienu konkrečiu atveju reikia įvertinti, ar informacijos šaltinio neatskleidimu nebus pažeistos Konstitucijos saugomos vertybės. Demokratinėje teisinėje valstybėje tokių klausimų sprendimas yra teismo kompetencija. Konstitucinis teisminės gynybos principas yra universalus (Konstitucinio Teismo 2002 m. liepos 2 d. nutarimas). 11

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • Taigi įstatymų leidėjas, nustatydamas žurnalisto teisę išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį, neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio, turi pareigą įstatymu nustatyti ir tai, kad kiekvienu atveju spręsti, ar žurnalistas turi atskleisti informacijos šaltinį, gali tik teismas. Nustatydamas tokius teismo įgaliojimus, įstatymų leidėjas yra saistomas žiniasklaidos laisvės sampratos, pagal kurią reikalauti, kad būtų atskleistas informacijos šaltinis, galima tik tada, kai tai būtina užtikrinti gyvybiškai svarbiems ar kitiems ypač reikšmingiems visuomenės interesams, taip pat siekiant užtikrinti, kad būtų apgintos asmenų konstitucinės teisės ir laisvės, kad būtų vykdomas teisingumas, t. y. tik tada, kai atskleisti informacijos šaltinį būtina dėl Konstitucijos saugomo svarbesnio intereso. 12

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • Vadinasi, atskleisti informacijos šaltinį nėra būtina, jei teismas nusprendžia, kad interesas atskleisti informacijos šaltinį nėra svarbesnis už interesą neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio. Tais atvejais, kai informacijos šaltinis atskleidžiamas, teismas, atsižvelgdamas į bylos aplinkybes, gali priimti sprendimą dėl atskleistos informacijos paplitimo į viešumą apribojimo. Taigi nustatydamas teismo įgaliojimus spręsti, ar turi būti atskleistas informacijos šaltinis, ar jo galima neatskleisti, įstatymų leidėjas negali paneigti iš Konstitucijos kylančios teismo pareigos sprendžiant informacijos šaltinio atskleidimo klausimą kiekvienu konkrečiu atveju įvertinti, ar informacijos šaltinį reikalaujama atskleisti būtent dėl to, kad būtų užtikrinti gyvybiškai svarbūs ar kiti ypač reikšmingi visuomenės interesai, taip pat siekiant užtikrinti, kad būtų apgintos asmens konstitucinės teisės ir laisvės, kad būtų vykdomas teisingumas. 13

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • Pažymėtina ir tai, kad įstatymų leidėjas, įstatymu nustatydamas teismo įgaliojimus spręsti informacijos šaltinio atskleidimo klausimą, turi pareigą nustatyti tokį teisinį reguliavimą, pagal kurį teismas spręsti, ar žurnalistas turi atskleisti informacijos šaltinį, galėtų tik tuo atveju, kai jau yra išnaudotos visos kitos informacijos šaltinio atskleidimo priemonės. 14

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas, pažymėdamas svarbų spaudos vaidmenį demokratinėje visuomenėje, taip pat atsižvelgdamas į demokratinės visuomenės interesą garantuoti ir ginti spaudos laisvę, yra konstatavęs, kad žurnalistų teisės neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio apribojimas yra pateisinamas, jeigu yra laikomasi Konvencijos 10 straipsnyje ir įstatymuose nustatytų reikalavimų: tokie apribojimai turi būtini demokratinės visuomenės interesams apsaugoti; kliudymas naudotis spaudos laisve negali būti suderinamas su Konvencijos 10 straipsniu, jei jis nebus pateisinamas svarbesniu visuomenės interesu (Cour. eur. D. H. , arret Fressoz et Roire c. France du 21 janvier 1999, Recueil des arrets et decisions 1999 -I ). Byloje Goodwin prieš Jungtinę Karalystę (Cour. eur. D. H. , arret Goodwin c. Royaume-Uni du 27 mars 1996, Recueil 1996 -II) Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas konstatavo, kad nors ir esama bendrojo intereso, jog žurnalistas informaciją gautų laisvai, jis, žadėdamas išsaugoti konfidencialumą ir nesiremti informacijos šaltiniu, negali nesuprasti, kad jo duotas pažadas privalo nusileisti svarbesniam visuomenės interesui. 15

Tarptautinė teisė • Europos Tarybos Ministrų Komiteto 2000 m. kovo 8 d. rekomendacijoje valstybėms narėms dėl žurnalistų teisės neatskleisti jų informacijos šaltinio teigiama, kad žurnalistų informacijos šaltinių gynimas yra pagrindinė žurnalistų darbo ir laisvės, taip pat žiniasklaidos laisvės sąlyga. Rekomendacijoje konstatuojama, kad šis gynimas turi ribas, nėra absoliutus, ir atkreipiamas dėmesys į tai, kad kompetentingos valdžios institucijos gali įsakyti atskleisti informacijos šaltinį, jei to reikalauja visuomenės interesas ir jei aplinkybės yra pakankamai gyvybiškai svarbios ir rimtos. Šaltinį identifikuojančios informacijos atskleidimas neturėtų būti laikomas būtinybe, jei nėra įtikinamai nustatyta, kad teisėtas interesas atskleisti šaltinį aiškiai nusveria visuomenės interesą neatskleisti šaltinio. Tais atvejais, kai žurnalistai sutinka patenkinti prašymą ar įvykdyti įsakymą atskleisti šaltinį identifikuojančią informaciją, kompetentingos institucijos turėtų apriboti atskleistos informacijos paplitimą į viešumą. 16

Tarptautinė teisė • Europos Parlamento 1994 m. sausio 18 d. rezoliucijoje dėl žurnalistų šaltinių konfidencialumo ir valstybės tarnautojų teisės atskleisti informaciją valdžios institucijos raginamos nustatyti pagarbos žurnalistų profesinei paslapčiai sąlygas, kartu ir pateisinamas bei visais atvejais ribotas išimtis. 17

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • Konstitucinis asmenų lygybės principas savaime nepaneigia to, kad įstatymu gali būti nustatytas nevienodas teisinis reguliavimas tam tikrų asmenų kategorijų, esančių skirtingose padėtyse, atžvilgiu (Konstitucinio Teismo 1996 m. vasario 28 d. nutarimas). Asmenų lygybės problema įstatymuose negali būti tinkamai išspręsta kiekvienu atveju neįvertinus to, ar pagrįstai jų atžvilgiu yra nustatomi teisinio reguliavimo ypatumai (Konstitucinio Teismo 1997 m. lapkričio 13 d. nutarimas). 18

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • 15. Žurnalisto teisė išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį, neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio yra viena iš žiniasklaidos laisvės sąlygų. 19

LR Konstitucinis Teismas • 16. Atsižvelgiant į išdėstytus argumentus darytina išvada, kad Visuomenės informavimo įstatymo 8 straipsnis ta apimtimi, kuria įtvirtinta, kad viešosios informacijos rengėjas, platintojas, viešosios informacijos rengėjo ir (ar) platintojo savininkas, žurnalistas turi teisę išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį, neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio net ir teismui, nors informacijos šaltinį atskleisti būtina tam, kad būtų vykdomas teisingumas, prieštarauja Konstitucijos 29 straipsniui. 20

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • 10. Mr William Goodwin, a British national, is a journalist and lives in London. • 11. On 3 August 1989 the applicant joined the staff of The Engineer, published by Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd ("the publishers"), as a trainee journalist. He was employed by Morgan Grampian PLC ("the employer"). 21

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • On 2 November 1989 the applicant was telephoned by a person who, according to the applicant, had previously supplied him with information on the activities of various companies. The source gave him information about Tetra Ltd ("Tetra"), to the effect that the company was in the process of raising a £ 5 million loan and had financial problems as a result of an expected loss of £ 2. 1 million for 1989 on a turnover of £ 20. 3 million. The information was unsolicited and was not given in exchange for any payment. It was provided on an unattributable basis. The applicant maintained that he had no reason to believe that the information derived from a stolen or confidential document. On 6 and 7 November 1989, intending to write an article about Tetra, he telephoned the company to check the facts and seek its comments on the information. 22

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • The information derived from a draft of Tetra’s confidential corporate plan. On 1 November 1989 there had been eight numbered copies of the most recent draft. Five had been in the possession of senior employees of Tetra, one with its accountants, one with a bank and one with an outside consultant. Each had been in a ring binder and was marked "Strictly Confidential". The accountants’ file had last been seen at about 3 p. m. on 1 November in a room they had been using at Tetra’s premises. The room had been left unattended between 3 p. m. and 4 p. m. and during that period the file had disappeared. 23

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • A. Injunction(uždraudimas) and orders for disclosure of sources and documents • 12. On 7 November 1989 Mr Justice Hoffmann of the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) granted an application by Tetra of the same date for an ex parte interim injunction restraining the publishers of The Engineer from publishing any information derived from the corporate plan. The company informed all the national newspapers and relevant journals of the injunction on 16 November. 24

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • 13. In an affidavit to the High Court dated 8 November 1989, Tetra stated that if the plan were to be made public it could result in a complete loss of confidence in the company on the part of its actual and potential creditors, its customers and in particular its suppliers, with a risk of loss of orders and of a refusal to supply the company with goods and services. This would inevitably lead to problems with Tetra’s refinancing negotiations. If the company went into liquidation, there would be approximately four hundred redundancies. 25

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • 14. On 14 November 1989 Mr Justice Hoffmann, on an application by Tetra, ordered the publishers, under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 ("the 1981 Act"; see paragraph 20 below), to disclose by 3 p. m. on 15 November the applicant’s notes from the above telephone conversation identifying his source. On the latter date, the publishers having failed to comply with the order, Mr Justice Hoffmann granted Tetra leave to join the applicant’s employer and the applicant himself to the proceedings and gave the defendants until 3 p. m. on the following day to produce the notes. 26

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • On 17 November 1989 the High Court made a further order to the effect that the applicant represented all persons who had received the plan or information derived from it without authority and that such persons should deliver up any copies of the plan in their possession. The motion was then adjourned for the applicant to bring this order to the attention of his source. However, the applicant declined to do so. • 15. On 22 November 1989 Mr Justice Hoffmann ordered the applicant to disclose by 3 p. m. on 23 November his notes on the grounds that it was necessary "in the interests of justice", within the meaning of section 10 of the 1981 Act (see paragraph 20 below), for the source’s identity to be disclosed in order to enable Tetra to bring proceedings against the source to recover the document, obtain an injunction preventing further publication or seek damages for the expenses to which it had been put. 27

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • 16. On the same date the Court of Appeal rejected an application by the applicant for a stay of execution of the High Court’s order, but substituted an order requiring the applicant either to disclose his notes to Tetra or to deliver them to the Court of Appeal in a sealed envelope with accompanying affidavit. The applicant did not comply with this order. 28

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • 17. On 23 November 1989 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal from Mr Justice Hoffmann’s order of 22 November 1989. He argued that disclosure of his notes was not "necessary in the interests of justice" within the meaning of section 10 of the 1981 Act; the public interest in publication outweighed the interest in preserving confidentiality; and, since he had not facilitated any breach of confidence, the disclosure order against him was invalid. 29

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • Lord Bridge, in the first of the five separate speeches given in the applicant’s case, underlined that in applying section 10 it was necessary to carry out a balancing exercise between the need to protect sources and, inter alia, the "interests of justice". He referred to a number of other cases in relation to how the balancing exercise should be conducted (in particular Secretary of State for Defence v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1985] Appeal Cases 339) and continued: • ". . . the question whether disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice gives rise to a more difficult problem of weighing one public interest against another. A question arising under this part of section 10 has not previously come before your Lordships’ House for decision. In discussing the section generally Lord Diplock said in Secretary of State for Defence v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1985] Appeal Cases 339, 350: 30

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • C. Fine for contempt (teismo negerbimas) of court • 19. In the meantime, on 23 November 1989, the applicant had been served with a motion seeking his committal for contempt of court, an offence which was punishable by an unlimited fine or up to two years’ imprisonment (section 14 of the 1981 Act). On 24 November, at a hearing in the High Court, counsel for the applicant had conceded that he had been in contempt but the motion was adjourned pending the appeal. • Following the House of Lord’s dismissal of the appeal, the High Court, on 10 April 1990, fined the applicant £ 5, 000 for contempt of court. 31

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • B. Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim? • 35. It was not disputed before the Convention institutions that the aim of the impugned measures was to protect Tetra’s rights and that the interference thus pursued a legitimate aim. The Government maintained that the measures were also taken for the prevention of crime. • 36. The Court, being satisfied that the interference pursued the first of these aims, does not find it necessary to determine whether it also pursued the second. 32

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • 37. The applicant and the Commission were of the opinion that Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention required that any compulsion imposed on a journalist to reveal his source had to be limited to exceptional circumstances where vital public or individual interests were at stake. This test was not satisfied in the present case. 33

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • The applicant and the Commission invoked the fact that Tetra had already obtained an injunction restraining publication (see paragraph 12 above), and that no breach of that injunction had occurred. 34

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • Since the information in question was of a type commonly found in the business press, they did not consider that the risk of damage that further publication could cause was substantiated by Tetra, which had suffered none of the harm adverted to. The applicant added that the information was newsworthy even though it did not reveal matters of vital public interest, such as crime or malfeasance. The information about Tetra’s mismanagement, losses and loan-seeking activities was factual, topical and of direct interest to customers and investors in the market for computer software. 35

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • Plaintiff. In any event, the degree of public interest in the information could not be a test of whethere was a pressing social need to order the source’s disclosure. A source may provide information of little value one day and of great value the next; what mattered was that the relationship between the journalist and the source was generating the kind of information which had legitimate news potential. This was not to deny Tetra’s entitlement to keep its operations secret, if it could, but to contest that there was a pressing social need for punishing the applicant for refusing to disclose the source of the information which Tetra had been unable to keep secret. 36

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • 38. The Government contended that the disclosure order was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of "the rights" of Tetra. The function of the domestic courts was both to ascertain facts and, in the light of the facts established, to determine the legal consequences which should flow from them. In the Government’s view, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Convention institutions extended only to the latter. These limitations on the Convention review were of importance in the present case, where the national courts had proceeded on the basis that the applicant had received the information from his source in ignorance as to its confidential nature, although, in fact, this was something he ought to have recognised. Moreover, the source was probably the thief of the confidential business plan and had improper motives for divulging the information. In addition, the plaintiffs would suffer serious commercial damage from further publication of the information. These findings by the domestic courts were based upon the evidence which was placed before them. 37

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • The journalist’s privilege should not extend to the protection of a source who has conducted himself mala fide or, at least, irresponsibly, in order to enable him to pass on, with impunity, information which has no public importance. The source in the present case had not exercised the responsibility which was called for by Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention. The information in issue did not possess a public-interest content which justified interference with the rights of a private company such as Tetra. 38

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • • 39. Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as is reflected in the laws and the professional codes of conduct in a number of Contracting States and is affirmed in several international instruments on journalistic freedoms (see, amongst others, the Resolution on Journalistic Freedoms and Human Rights, adopted at the 4 th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Prague, 7 -8 December 1994) and Resolution on the Confidentiality of Journalists’ Sources by the European Parliament, 18 January 1994, Official Journal of the European Communities No. C 44/34). Without such protection, sources may be deterred (atbaidyti) from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected. Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest. These considerations are to be taken into account in applying to the facts of the present case the test of necessity in a democratic society under paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10 -2). 39

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • 40. As a matter of general principle, the "necessity" for any restriction on freedom of expression must be convincingly established (see the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 217, pp. 28 -29, para. 50, for a statement of the major principles governing the "necessity" test). Admittedly, it is in the first place for the national authorities to assess whethere is a "pressing social need" for the restriction and, in making their assessment, they enjoy a certain margin of appreciation. In the present context, however, the national margin of appreciation is circumscribed by the interest of democratic society in ensuring and maintaining a free press. Similarly, that interest will weigh heavily in the balance in determining, as must be done under paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10 -2), whether the restriction was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In sum, limitations on the confidentiality of journalistic sources call for the most careful scrutiny by the Court. 40

CASE OF GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17488/90, 1996. 03. 27) • 46. In sum, there was not, in the Court’s view, a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the legitimate aim pursued by the disclosure order and the means deployed to achieve that aim. The restriction which the disclosure order entailed on the applicant journalist’s exercise of his freedom of expression cannot therefore be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 102), for the protection of Tetra’s rights under English law, notwithstanding the margin of appreciation available to the national authorities. • Accordingly, the Court concludes that both the order requiring the applicant to reveal his source and the fine imposed upon him for having refused to do so gave rise to a violation of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 (art. 10). 41

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 5. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Riga. • 6. The applicant, at the time of the material events, was working for the national television broadcaster Latvijas televīzija (“LTV”). She was a producer, reporter and host of the weekly investigative news programme De facto, aired in prime time every Sunday night. 42

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 7. On 10 February 2010 the applicant received an e-mail from a person who called himself “Neo”, revealing that there were serious security flaws in a database maintained by the State Revenue Service (Valsts ieņēmumu dienests – “the VID”). Allegedly, these flaws made it possible to access the data stored in the Electronic Declaration System (Elektroniskā deklarēšanas sistēma – “the EDS”) without breaching any security protocols. In support of his allegations, “Neo” attached some examples of the data which he had downloaded in this manner (for example, salaries of LTV employees), the veracity of which the applicant could confirm. The applicant concluded that the data were genuine (tikras) and that, most probably, there was a serious security flaw in the system. She then proceeded to inform the VID of a possible security breach. 43

• 8. “Neo” did not reveal his identity to the applicant during their e-mail correspondence. He told her that there were more data which showed that the austerity measures in the public sector did not affect the highest-paid State officials. It transpired during their correspondence that “Neo” did not wish to reveal his identity. 44

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 9. On 14 February 2010 the applicant, acting in her capacity as a journalist, announced during the broadcast of De facto that there had been a massive data leak from the EDS. She reported that the information concerned the income, tax payments and personal identity details of public officials, as well as private individuals and companies. 45

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 10. One week after the broadcast, “Neo” started to publish data through his Twitter account concerning the salaries paid at various public institutions, at State and municipal levels; in some cases the names of the officials were included, and in others only the salaries were published. The information received wide media coverage. On 18 April 2010 he stopped publishing it. 46

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 12. On 19 February 2010 the police went to LTV to take evidence from the applicant as a witness in the criminal proceedings. They asked for a transcript of the 14 February 2010 broadcast, as well as access to the e-mail correspondence with “Neo”. The applicant declined to disclose the identity of her source or any information which could lead to its disclosure, referring to the right of non-disclosure as set forth in section 22 of the Law on Press and Other Mass Media. 47

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 13. On the same date another journalist was also asked to disclose the identity of his journalistic source, as he had a public communication with “Neo”, which had been aired during another television broadcast. He refused to testify since he did not consider that his source had done anything wrong. 48

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 14. According to the Government, on 11 May 2010 the investigating authorities established that two of the IP address which had been used to connect to the EDS, had been used by a certain I. P. It was also established that I. P. had made several phone calls to the applicant’s phone number. • 15. On 11 May 2010, at about 6. 55 p. m. , I. P. was arrested in connection with the criminal proceedings; he was released from custody a few months later. 49

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 17. On 14 May 2010 the investigator ordered a technical examination of the data storage devices that had been seized at the applicant’s home on 11 May 2010. According to the Government, all these devices were handed over to the relevant examination body within the State Police in two sealed bags. These packs remained unopened until 17 May 2010, when an expert opened them; their packaging or seals were not damaged. On 17 and 18 May 2010 the expert copied all the information from the data storage devices onto another computer using a special software programme. On 19 May 2010 he sealed the bags and handed them back to the investigator. On 21 May 2010 the data storage devices were returned to the applicant. • 18. On 15 June 2010 the technical examination was completed and, according to the Government, the information that had been copied was destroyed. 50

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • C. The search at the applicant’s home on 11 May 2010 and subsequent judicial review • 20. On 11 May 2010 the investigator drew up a search warrant, which was authorised by a public prosecutor the same day. 51

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 21. On 11 May 2010, from 9. 34 to 10. 30 p. m. , the police conducted a search at the applicant’s home. • 22. According to the applicant, upon her return home that night a plain‑clothes policeman approached her in the stairwell and, without identifying himself, physically prevented her from closing the doors. Only then did he present a search warrant and proceed to conduct the search together with two other officers. During the search the following data storage devices were seized: a personal laptop, an external hard drive, a memory card and four flash drives. According to the applicant, these devices contained a large body of her personal data as well as most of her work-related material. 52

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 24. On 12 May 2010 the investigating judge retrospectively approved the search warrant of 11 May 2010 in the form of an “approval” written on that warrant. No reasons were given. 53

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 25. On 14 June 2010 the President of the firstinstance court, upon a complaint by the applicant, upheld the investigating judge’s decision and concluded that the search was lawful and that the evidence obtained was admissible in the criminal proceedings. No hearing was held. She examined the applicant’s written complaints, the criminal case file and the investigator’s written explanation. 54

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 80. The Court has already found that Article 10 of the Convention does not only protect anonymous sources assisting the press to inform the public about matters of public interest (see Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec. ), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005‑XIII). In that case the Court considered that Article 10 of the Convention applied even when a journalist had worked undercover and had used a hidden camera to film participants in a television programme, who could thus not be regarded as “sources of journalistic information in the traditional sense”. It was rather the compulsory handover of his research material that was susceptible of having a chilling effect on the exercise of journalistic freedom of expression. In that case, the identity of the journalistic sources in the traditional sense was adequately protected, and the handing over of the research material in relation to an alleged perpetrator, whose actions were under criminal investigation and whose identity was known to the police, was not deemed disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the reasons given by the national authorities were considered to be relevant and sufficient. 55

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 82. The Court notes that the Government admitted that the search at the applicant’s home had been aimed at gathering “information about the criminal offence under investigation” and that it authorised not only the seizure of the files themselves but also the seizure of “information concerning the acquisition of these files”. While recognising the importance of securing evidence in criminal proceedings, the Court emphasises that a chilling effect will arise wherever journalists are seen to assist in the identification of anonymous sources (see Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 70, 15 December 2009) 56

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 82. In the present case, irrespective of whether the identity of the applicant’s source was discovered during the search, as found by the Ombudsman, or at the very least confirmed during that search, as submitted by the applicant, it nevertheless remains that the seized data storage devices contained not only information capable of identifying her source of information, pertaining either to “the factual circumstances of acquiring information” from her source or to “the unpublished content” of that information, but also information capable of identifying her other sources of information. It does not need to be further demonstrated that the search yielded any results or indeed proved otherwise productive (see Roemen and Schmit, cited above, § 57, and Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 103, 15 July 2003). The Court therefore does not accept the Government’s argument that the search did not relate to journalistic sources. 57

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 94. The Court must accordingly examine the reasons given by the authorities for the applicant’s search, together with the scope of the search warrant, in order to ascertain whether those reasons were “relevant” and “sufficient” and thus whether, having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities, the interference was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and whether it corresponded to a “pressing social need”. 58

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • The Court considers that it is even more so in the circumstances of the present case, where the search warrant was drafted in such vague terms as to allow the seizure of “any information” pertaining to the crime under investigation allegedly committed by the journalist’s source, irrespective of whether or not his identity had already been known to the investigating authorities. As the Court has already noted in Roemen and Schmit and Ernst and Others, investigators who raid a journalist’s workplace or home unannounced and are armed with search warrants have very wide investigative powers, as, by definition, they have access to all the documentation held by the journalist. The Court reiterates that limitations on the confidentiality of journalistic sources call for the most careful scrutiny by the Court. 59

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 97. The Court notes that the subject-matter on which the applicant reported and in connection with which her home was searched made a twofold contribution to a public debate. It was primarily aimed at keeping the public informed about the salaries paid in the public sector at a time of economic crisis, when a variety of austerity measures had been introduced. It is not insignificant that, around the same time, legislative amendments were being drafted to make information concerning salaries in public institutions available to the general public (see paragraph 39 above). 60

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • The Court emphasises that the right of journalists not to disclose their sources cannot be considered a mere privilege to be granted or taken away depending on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their sources, but is part and parcel of the right to information, to be treated with the utmost caution (see Tillack, cited above, § 65). Given the multiple interests in issue, the Court emphasises that the conduct of the source will merely operate as one factor to be taken into consideration in carrying out the balancing exercise required under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Financial Times Ltd and Others, cited above, § 63). 61

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 98. The Court observes that the broadcast during which the applicant informed the public about the data leak from the EDS was aired on 14 February 2010, that is, nearly three months before the search at the applicant’s home. According to the investigator, since that date there had been no further communication between the applicant and her source. In this respect, the Court notes that when the investigating authorities, almost three months after the broadcast and after the applicant had agreed to testify, decided that a search at her home was necessary, they proceeded under the urgent procedure without any judicial authority having properly examined the relationship of proportionality between the public interest of investigation, on the one hand, and the protection of the journalist’s freedom of expression, on the other hand. 62

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 101. The Court considers that any search involving the seizure of data storage devices such as laptops, external hard drives, memory cards and flash drives belonging to a journalist raises a question of the journalist’s freedom of expression including source protection and that the access to the information contained therein must be protected by sufficient and adequate safeguards against abuse. In the present case, although the investigating judge’s involvement in an immediate post factum review was provided for in the law, the Court finds that the investigating judge failed to establish that the interests of the investigation in securing evidence were sufficient to override the public interest in the protection of the journalist’s freedom of expression, including source protection and protection against the handover of the research material. 63

CASE OF NAGLA v. LATVIA (Application no. 73469/10, 2013. 07. 10) • 102. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the interference complained of were not given. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. 64

65