SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Higher domestic courts in Romania considered that the company’s freedom of expression outweighed the minor’s right to privacy, especially since the broadcast reported on matters of public interest. The ECtHR considered that national courts failed to correctly balance the aforementioned rights. For this Tribunal, the young age and lack of notoriety of the applicant, compounded by the little contribution that her interview was likely to bring to a debate of public interest —regarding an event she didn’t witness—, the absence of parental consent, and the particular interest in the protection of the private life of minors, were sufficiently strong reasons for the ECtHR to consider that Romania had breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). More info here. In the Case of N.Š. v. Croatia (2020), the First Section of the ECtHR found that the criminal conviction of a grandmother for breaching the confidentiality of administrative custody proceedings violated her freedom of expression. The case concerned Ms. N.Š.’ participation in a television interview where details about the administrative custody proceedings concerning her granddaughter were disclosed, including her granddaughter’s name. She was criminally convicted for disclosing information that had been confidential, despite claims that she informed the journalists not to publicize such information and despite prior instances where the same information was publicized in the media. The Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court dismissed the applicant’s proposals to hear further evidence on these claims. Her conviction was upheld by the Zagreb County Court and the Constitutional Court. The European Court of Human Rights held that, ultimately, an extensive balancing exercise was needed between the competing rights of freedom of expression and the privacy of the child. The domestic courts failed to properly conduct this exercise, instead engaging in too “formalistic” an approach. The Court found Ms. N.Š.’ freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights was violated. More info here. Colombia: In the case of Morelli v. Noticias Uno (2013), the Constitutional Court of Colombia found that orders restraining the reporting of a dispute between a state official and her neighbors were over-broad for the purpose of protecting the rights of that official’s child. The issue surrounded a news broadcast which included identifiable images of the official’s son. The Constitutional Court of Colombia held that the rights of the child could be sufficiently protected by the removal of the images, but that it was a violation of the right to freedom of expression to order the removal of the entire news broadcast, as well as those references to the official’s son that were already in the public domain. More info here. United Kingdom: In the case of Murray v. Big Pictures Limited (2008), the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom unanimously allowed the appeal brought by the Appellant against the High Court’s order and reinstated a claim for breach of privacy in a case wherein the photograph of a celebrity’s child was taken and published without consent. The case arose when a photographer from Big Pictures Limited took the picture of Dr Neil and Joanne Murray’s son, David Murray without their consent. The photograph was subsequently published in several newspapers and magazines. David’s parents initiated proceedings against the photographer and Big Pictures claiming the violation of the right to privacy of their son. The High Court dismissed their appeal 38