Žiniasklaidos teisė IX Paskaita Žurnalisto šaltinio apsauga 1

Žiniasklaidos teisė

IX PaskaitaŽurnalisto šaltinio apsauga

Žurnalisto šaltinio apsauga

bull Kas yra žurnalisto šaltinisbull Kodėl svarbu jį išsaugoti paslaptyjebull Kaip jį išsaugoti paslaptyjebull Kaip jo apsaugą užtikrina LT Konstitucija

įstatymaibull Kaip jo apsauga užtikrina EŽTT jurisprudencija

Visuomenės informavimo įstatymas

bull 8 straipsnis Informacijos šaltinio paslaptis

bull 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

LR Konstitucinis Teismas

bull LR KT 2002-10-23 nutarimas bdquoDėl viešojo asmens privataus gyvenimo apsaugos ir žurnalisto teisės neatskleisti informacijos šaltinioldquo

LR Konstitucinis Teismasbull 1 Visuomenės informavimo įstatymo 8 straipsnyjebull nustatyta Viešosios informacijos rengėjas platintojasbull viešosios informacijos rengėjo ir (ar) platintojo savininkasbull žurnalistas turi teisę išsaugoti informacijos šaltiniobull paslaptį neatskleisti informacijos šaltiniobull Pareiškėjas prašo ištirti ar Įstatymo 8 straipsnisbull neprieštarauja Konstitucijos 29 straipsnio 1 daliai nes jobull manymu ginčijamame Įstatymo straipsnyje įtvirtinta viešosiosbull informacijos rengėjo platintojo viešosios informacijosbull rengėjo ir (ar) platintojo savininko žurnalisto teisėbull išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį neatskleistibull informacijos šaltinio reiškia kad minėtų asmenų padėtisbull palyginti su kitais asmenimis yra privilegijuotabull 2 Konstitucijos 29 straipsnyje nustatytabull Įstatymui teismui ir kitoms valstybės institucijoms arbull pareigūnams visi asmenys lygūsbull Žmogaus teisių negalima varžyti ir teikti jam privilegijųbull dėl jo lyties rasės tautybės kalbos kilmės socialinėsbull padėties tikėjimo įsitikinimų ar pažiūrų pagrindu

bull 5 Konstitucinė laisvė nekliudomai ieškoti gauti irbull skleisti informaciją bei idėjas yra vienas iš atvirosbull teisingos darnios pilietinės visuomenės demokratinėsbull valstybės pagrindų Ši laisvė - svarbi įvairių Konstitucijojebull įtvirtintų asmens teisių ir laisvių įgyvendinimo prielaidabull kadangi asmuo gali visavertiškai įgyvendinti daugelį savobull konstitucinių teisių ir laisvių tik turėdamas laisvębull nekliudomai ieškoti gauti ir skleisti informacijąbull Konstitucija garantuoja ir saugo visuomenės interesą

būtibull informuotai

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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)

LR Konstitucinis Teismasbull 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

LR Konstitucinis Teismasbull 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

bull 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

LR Konstitucinis Teismasbull 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 būti 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

Tarptautinė teisėbull 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

Tarptautinė teisė

bull 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

bull 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)

bull 15 Žurnalisto teisė išsaugoti informacijos šaltinio paslaptį neatskleisti informacijos šaltinio yra viena iš žiniasklaidos laisvės sąlygų

bull 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

CASE OF GOODWIN v THE UNITED KINGDOM(Application no 174889019960327)

bull 10 Mr William Goodwin a British national is a journalist and lives in London

bull 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)

bull 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 pound5 million loan and had financial problems as a result of an expected loss of pound21 million for 1989 on a turnover of pound203 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

bull The information derived from a draft of Tetrarsquos 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 accountantsrsquo file had last been seen at about 3 pm on 1 November in a room they had been using at Tetrarsquos premises The room had been left unattended between 3 pm and 4 pm and during that period the file had disappeared

bull A Injunction(uždraudimas) and orders for disclosure of sources and documents

bull 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

bull 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 Tetrarsquos refinancing negotiations If the company went into liquidation there would be approximately four hundred redundancies

bull 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 pm on 15 November the applicantrsquos 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 applicantrsquos employer and the applicant himself to the proceedings and gave the defendants until 3 pm on the following day to produce the notes

bull 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

bull 15 On 22 November 1989 Mr Justice Hoffmann ordered the applicant to disclose by 3 pm 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 sourcersquos 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

bull 16 On the same date the Court of Appeal rejected an application by the applicant for a stay of execution of the High Courtrsquos 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

bull 17 On 23 November 1989 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal from Mr Justice Hoffmannrsquos 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

bull Lord Bridge in the first of the five separate speeches given in the applicantrsquos 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

bull 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 Lordshipsrsquo House for decision In discussing the section generally Lord Diplock said in Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1985] Appeal Cases 339350

bull C Fine for contempt (teismo negerbimas) of courtbull 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 yearsrsquo 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

bull Following the House of Lordrsquos dismissal of the appeal the High Court on 10 April 1990 fined the applicant pound5000 for contempt of court

bull B Did the interference pursue a legitimate aimbull 35 It was not disputed before the Convention

institutions that the aim of the impugned measures was to protect Tetrarsquos rights and that the interference thus pursued a legitimate aim The Government maintained that the measures were also taken for the prevention of crime

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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 Tetrarsquos mismanagement losses and loan-seeking activities was factual topical and of direct interest to customers and investors in the market for computer software

bull Plaintiff In any event the degree of public interest in the information could not be a test of whether there was a pressing social need to order the sourcersquos 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 Tetrarsquos 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

bull 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 Governmentrsquos 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

bull The journalistrsquos 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

bull 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 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Prague 7-8 December 1994) and Resolution on the Confidentiality of Journalistsrsquo Sources by the European Parliament 18 January 1994 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 4434) 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

bull 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)

bull 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 whether there 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

bull 46 In sum there was not in the Courtrsquos 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 journalistrsquos 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 10-2) for the protection of Tetrarsquos rights under English law notwithstanding the margin of appreciation available to the national authorities

bull 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)

CASE OF NAGLA v LATVIA(Application no 7346910 20130710)

bull 5 The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Riga

bull 6 The applicant at the time of the material events was working for the national television broadcaster Latvijas televīzija (ldquoLTVrdquo) She was a producer reporter and host of the weekly investigative news programme De facto aired in prime time every Sunday night

bull 7 On 10 February 2010 the applicant received an e-mail from a person who called himself ldquoNeordquo revealing that there were serious security flaws in a database maintained by the State Revenue Service (Valsts ieņēmumu dienests ndash ldquothe VIDrdquo) Allegedly these flaws made it possible to access the data stored in the Electronic Declaration System (Elektroniskā deklarēšanas sistēma ndash ldquothe EDSrdquo) without breaching any security protocols In support of his allegations ldquoNeordquo 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

bull 8 ldquoNeordquo 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 ldquoNeordquo did not wish to reveal his identity

bull 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

bull 10 One week after the broadcast ldquoNeordquo 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

bull 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 ldquoNeordquo 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

bull 13 On the same date another journalist was also asked to disclose the identity of his journalistic source as he had had a public communication with ldquoNeordquo which had been aired during another television broadcast He refused to testify since he did not consider that his source had done anything wrong

bull 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 IP It was also established that IP had made several phone calls to the applicantrsquos phone number

bull 15 On 11 May 2010 at about 655 pm IP was arrested in connection with the criminal proceedings he was released from custody a few months later

bull 17 On 14 May 2010 the investigator ordered a technical examination of the data storage devices that had been seized at the applicantrsquos 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

bull 18 On 15 June 2010 the technical examination was completed and according to the Government the information that had been copied was destroyed

bull C The search at the applicantrsquos home on 11 May 2010 and subsequent judicial review

bull 20 On 11 May 2010 the investigator drew up a search warrant which was authorised by a public prosecutor the same day

bull 21 On 11 May 2010 from 934 to 1030 pm the police conducted a search at the applicantrsquos home

bull 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

bull 24 On 12 May 2010 the investigating judge retrospectively approved the search warrant of 11 May 2010 in the form of an ldquoapprovalrdquo written on that warrant No reasons were given

bull 25 On 14 June 2010 the President of the first-instance court upon a complaint by the applicant upheld the investigating judgersquos 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 applicantrsquos written complaints the criminal case file and the investigatorrsquos written explanation

bull 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 amp TV AS v Denmark (dec) no 4048502 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 ldquosources of journalistic information in the traditional senserdquo 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

bull 82 The Court notes that the Government admitted that the search at the applicantrsquos home had been aimed at gathering ldquoinformation about the criminal offence under investigationrdquo and that it authorised not only the seizure of the files themselves but also the seizure of ldquoinformation concerning the acquisition of these filesrdquo 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 82103 sect 70 15 December 2009)

bull 82 In the present case irrespective of whether the identity of the applicantrsquos 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 ldquothe factual circumstances of acquiring informationrdquo from her source or to ldquothe unpublished contentrdquo 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 sect 57 and Ernst and Others v Belgium no 3340096 sect 103 15 July 2003) The Court therefore does not accept the Governmentrsquos argument that the search did not relate to journalistic sources

bull 94 The Court must accordingly examine the reasons given by the authorities for the applicantrsquos search together with the scope of the search warrant in order to ascertain whether those reasons were ldquorelevantrdquo and ldquosufficientrdquo 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 ldquopressing social needrdquo

bull 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 ldquoany informationrdquo pertaining to the crime under investigation allegedly committed by the journalistrsquos 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 journalistrsquos 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

bull 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)

bull 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 sect 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 sect 2 of the Convention (see Financial Times Ltd and Others cited above sect 63)

bull 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 applicantrsquos 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 journalistrsquos freedom of expression on the other hand

bull 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 journalistrsquos 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 judgersquos 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 journalistrsquos freedom of expression including source protection and protection against the handover of the research material

bull 102 The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that ldquorelevant and sufficientrdquo reasons for the interference complained of were not given There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention

LR Konstitucinis Teismas (2)

Tarptautinė teisė

Tarptautinė teisė (2)

CASE OF GOODWIN v THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no 1748890

CASE OF GOODWIN v THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no 1748890 (2)

CASE OF NAGLA v LATVIA (Application no 7346910 20130710)

CASE OF NAGLA v LATVIA (Application no 7346910 20130710) (2)

bull Kas yra žurnalisto šaltinisbull Kodėl svarbu jį išsaugoti paslaptyjebull Kaip jį išsaugoti paslaptyjebull Kaip jo apsaugą užtikrina LT Konstitucija

įstatymaibull Kaip jo apsauga užtikrina EŽTT jurisprudencija

Tarptautinė teisė

Documents

Žiniasklaidos teisė IX Paskaita Žurnalisto šaltinio apsauga 1