Procedural and Substantive Aspects of the Right to Protect Sources under Article 10 ECHR
Vol.32,No.2(2024)
This paper lays out the content of the right to protect sources which derives from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On the basis of the European Court of Human Right’s case law, it argues that the right to protect sources has both procedural and substantive aspects. Concerning the substantive aspects, the right to protect sources usually manifests as a right to prevent any of the four identified types of interferences which repeatedly appear in the Court’s case law (duty to testify, searches and seizures, targetted interception of communication content or communication data, and bulk interception of the same). However, the concept of interference with the right to protect sources must ultimately be understood in the widest possible sense. Hence, the content of the said right cannot be reduced to protection against the “typical” interferences. Furthermore, the right to protect sources also entails both ex ante and ex post procedural guarantees ensuring its effective protection. In sum, content of the right to protect sources turns out to be rather extensive.
right to protect journalistic sources; reporters’ privilege; journalist; media; source; media freedom; freedom of expression; Article 10 ECHR; European Court of Human Rights
213–242
Terezie Boková
Department of Constitutional Law and Political Science, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Brno
Ph.D. student; Legal Assistant, The Constitutional Court
BOKOVÁ, T. Svoboda médií jako právní koncept: jak definuje ESLP „médium“? Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi. 2022, roč. 30, č. 4, s. 671 a násl. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/CPVP2022-4-1
COE, P. Media freedom in the age of citizen journalism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371262.00005
CRAIG, P., BÚRCA, G. de (eds.). The evolution of EU law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
GRABOWSKA-MOROZ, B. The Pegasus scandal in Poland – between old problems with state surveillance and the current rule of law crisis. about:intel [online]. 16. 1. 2024 [cit. 24. 2. 2024]. Dostupné z: https://aboutintel.eu/pegasus-and-the-rule-of-law-crisis-in-poland/
KALDANI, T., PROKOPETS, Z. Pegasus spyware and its impacts on human rights. Information Society Department, Council of Europe, 2022. Dostupné z: https://rm.coe.int/pegasus-spyware-report-en/1680a6f5d8
KOLTAY, A. The concept of media freedom today: new media, new editors and the traditional approach of the law. Journal of Media Law. 2015, roč. 7, č. 1, s. 36–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2015.1055143
KONINGISOR, C. The De Facto Reporter’s Privilege. Yale Law Journal. 2018, roč. 127, č. 5, s. 1176–1269.
MITSILEGAS, V. a kol. Data retention and the future of large-scale surveillance: The evolution and contestation of judicial benchmarks. European Law Journal. 2023, roč. 29, č. 1–2, s. 176–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12417
MORAVEC, O. Redakční tajemství v České republice perspektivou judikatury Evropského soudu pro lidská práva. Jurisprudence. 2006, roč. XV, č. 3, s. 22–27.
MORAVEC, O. Mediální právo v informační společnosti. Praha: Leges, 2013.
ORCAN, N. U. Legitimate Aims, Illegitimate Aims and the E.Ct.H.R.: Changing Attitudes and Selective Strictness. University of Bologna Law Review. 2022, roč. 7, č. 1, s. 7–40.
OSTER, J. Media Freedom as a Fundamental Right. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Dostupné z: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781316162736
PEERS, S. a kol. (eds.). The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Hart Publishing, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845259055
PODKOWIK, J., RYBSKI, R., ZUBIK, M. Judicial dialogue on data retention laws: A breakthrough for European constitutional courts? International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2021, roč. 19, č. 5, s. 1597–1631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moab132
ROWBOTTOM, J. Media law. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781782256670
SLOOT, B. van der, KOSTA, E. Big Brother Watch and Others v UK: Lessons from the Latest Strasbourg Ruling on Bulk Surveillance. European Data Protection Law Review. 2019, roč. 5, č. 2, s. 252–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2019/2/16
TAMBINI, D. Media freedom. Medford: Polity Press, 2021.
WEST, S. R. Awakening the Press Clause. UCLA Law Review. 2011, roč. 58, č. 4, s. 1025–1070.
WEST, S. R. Press exceptionalism. Harvard Law Review. 2014, roč. 127, č. 8, s. 2434–2463.
WRAGG, P. A free and regulated press: defending coercive independent press regulation. Oxford; New York: Hart, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509927265
ZALNIERIUTE, M. Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom. American Journal of International Law. 2022, roč. 116, č. 3, s. 585–592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.35
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2024 Terezie Boková