003-4436954-5336462

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 223 (2013)   16.07.2013   Latvian investigating authorities failed to adequately protect   journalistic sources in search of well-known journalist’s home   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Nagla v. Latvia (application   no. 73469/10), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The case concerned the search by the police of a well-known broadcast journalist’s   home, and their seizure of data storage devices. Her home was searched following a   broadcast she had aired in February 2010 informing the public of an information leak   from the State Revenue Service database.   The Court emphasised that the right of journalist’s not to disclose their sources could not   be considered a privilege, dependent on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their sources,   but rather as an intrinsic part of the right to information that should be treated with the   utmost caution. In this case the investigating authorities had failed to properly balance   the interest of the investigation in securing evidence against the public interest in   protecting the journalist’s freedom of expression.   Principal facts   The applicant, Ilze Nagla, is a Latvian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Riga   (Latvia). During the period when the search and seizure took place she was working for   the national television broadcaster Latvijas televīzija (LTV), producing and hosting the   weekly investigative news programme ‘De Facto’.   On 10 February 2010 Ms Nagla was contacted by an anonymous source who revealed   that there were serious security flaws in a database maintained by the State Revenue   Service (Valsts ieņēmumu dienests – VID), which allowed information concerning the   income, tax payments and personal identity details of public officials, private individuals   and companies to be accessed. Ms Nagla informed the VID of a possible security breach   and then publicly announced the data leak during a broadcast of De Facto.   One week after this broadcast, her source, identifying himself as “Neo” began to use   Twitter to publish information concerning the salaries of state officials in various public   institutions, and continued to do so until 18 April 2010.   The VID had criminal proceedings initiated and on 19 February 2010 the investigating   police interviewed Ms Nagla as a witness. She declined to disclose the identity of her   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   source, citing the right of non-disclosure as set forth in section 22 of the Law on Press   and Other Mass Media.   On 11 May 2010 the applicant’s home was searched, and a laptop, an external hard   drive, a memory card, and four flash drives were seized after a search warrant was   drawn up by the investigator and authorised by a public prosecutor. The warrant cited   evidence of communication between Ms Nagla and an individual the police suspected was   ‘Neo’, and suggested Ms Nagla may have information concerning the data leaks or the   processing, storage and dissemination of information obtained through those leaks. It   also noted the possibility that such evidence could be at risk of destruction or   concealment to support the application of a special, urgent search procedure whereby   the warrant could be retrospectively approved by the investigating judge. This approval   was granted on the day after the search of Ms Nagla’s home, and was subsequently   upheld by the President of the first instance court after the applicant filed a complaint.   In September 2010 the Ombudsman delivered a non-binding opinion in which he   concluded that the actions of the investigating authorities had breached Ms Nagla’s   freedom of expression and her right not to disclose journalistic sources, as enshrined in   the national Constitution and international treaties.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Ms Nagla complained that the search of   her home meant that she had been compelled to disclose information that had enabled a   journalistic source to be identified, violating her right to receive and impart information.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 December   2010.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), President,   Ineta Ziemele (Latvia),   Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),   Ledi Bianku (Albania),   Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malta),   Paul Mahoney (the United Kingdom),   Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),   and also Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The data storage devices seized during the search of Ms Nagla’s home contained   information capable not only of identifying the source of her information regarding the   data leaks, but also her other journalistic sources of information. Therefore the Court did   not accept the Government’s argument that the search did not relate to journalistic   sources, finding that the search at Ms Nagla’s home and the information capable of being   discovered there came within the sphere of protection under Article 10 of the   Convention.   Furthermore, it considered that there had been an interference with Ms Nagla’s freedom   to receive and impart information. That interference was “prescribed by law” and   pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder or crime and protecting the rights of   others.   The Court found that the reasons given by the domestic authorities for the search had   not been “relevant” and “sufficient”, nor did they constitute a “pressing social need”. The   subject matter on which Ms Nagla reported, and in connection with which the search was   conducted, made a twofold contribution to public debate. It kept the public informed   about salaries paid in the public sector in the context of a climate of economic crisis and   austerity, as well as exposing security flaws in the database of the State Revenue   Service. The Court emphasised that the right of journalists not to disclose their sources   could not be considered a privilege, dependent on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their   sources, but rather as an intrinsic part of the right to information that should be treated   with the utmost caution.   Indeed, 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. Taking into account that there was no information linking the   applicant to ‘Neo’ in any way other than in her capacity as a journalist and that their   communication had stopped on the day of the broadcast, only weighty reasons could   have justified the urgency of the search of Ms Nagla’s home.   Moreover, any search involving the seizure of data storage devices belonging to a   journalist raised the question of a journalist’s freedom of expression, including source   protection, and access to the information contained therein had to be protected by   sufficient and adequate safeguards against abuse. Although the investigating judge   reviewed the lawfulness of, and grounds for, the applicant’s search after it had actually   taken place, as provided for in domestic legislation, that 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 handing over of research material.   There had accordingly been a violation of Article 10.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The court held that Latvia was to pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of   non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 10,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_press.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   4