SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION xvi. Salaries of public officials Venezuela: In the case of Asociación Civil Espacio Público v. Contraloría General de la República (2010), the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Venezuela dismissed an action to enforce constitutional rights filed by the Espacio Público Civic Association against the refusal from the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic to provide information about the salaries of public officials working at the institution. The Court based its decision on its analysis that the information was part of the officials’ realm of “economic privacy” and that the appellants had not shown their legitimate and sufficient personal interest in attaining information belonging to this realm of privacy. This ruling illustrates the perils of the absence of independence of the judicial power. In this case, the Supreme Court of Venezuela departs from the principle of safeguarding the right of access to information as enshrined in the Constitution and international human right standards by which access to public information shouldn’t be conditioned to the applicant proving the existence of a personal or individual interest in such information More info here. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held xvii. Consumer Privacy United States: In the case of Barr. v. American that the state of Romania Assoc. of Political Consultants (2020), the Supreme breached the right to privacy Court of the United States held that the exception of the applicant when its carved out to allow robocalls for collection of government debt was unconstitutional and should be severed domestic courts argued that a from the remainder of the statute. Robocalls had been company was not civilly liable restricted in 1991 through the enactment of the Telefor broadcasting on television phone Consumer Protection Act, but an exception was added in 2015 which allowed robocalls “made solely an interview of the applicant, to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United then aged eleven, without the States.” A group of organizations that participated in consent of her parents. political advocacy challenged the robocall restriction, arguing that it violated their First Amendment rights by preventing them from using robocalls to communicate their political messages efficiently. The Supreme Court found the exception was an unjustifiable content-based restriction and hence could not survive strict scrutiny. It therefore severed that exception but kept the broad restriction on the use of robocalls intact, recognizing “Congress’s continuing interest in protecting consumer privacy.” More info here. xviii. Rights of children ECtHR: In the case of I.V.Ț. v. Romania (2022), the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that the state of Romania breached the right to privacy of the applicant when its domestic courts argued that a company was not civilly liable for broadcasting on television an interview of the applicant, then aged eleven, without the consent of her parents. 37