SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION crecy of correspondence and other means of communications prescribed in article 41 of the Constitution of Republic of Serbia. These provisions were declared to be unconstitutional because their formulation was not sufficiently precise and left open the possibility of accessing data without a court order. In this decision the Court does not analyze the right to freedom of expression when considering the reasons for its ruling. Nonetheless, the scope of the protection of privacy in this particular case provides protection to the right to freedom of expression against the chilling effect of surveillance or overly broad data collection. More info here3. vii. Electronic espionage: Pegasus spyware India: In the case of Manohar v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court of India found that there was a prima facie case to create an Expert Committee to examine the allegations of unauthorized surveillance and privacy breaches by the Indian government and foreign parties on Indian citizens. Numerous petitioners, including journalists, lawyers and other human rights activists, alleged that their digital devices were compromised by Pegasus spyware, developed by an Israeli technology firm, on the basis of an investigation conducted by 17 media organizations from around the world. The Court ruled that unauthorized surveillance of stored data from the digital devices of citizens through spyware for reasons other than the nation’s security would be illegal, objectionable, and could have far-reaching consequences to not only privacy rights, but also rights to freedom of expression. Given the government’s refusal to provide information under the blanket defense of “national security”, the Court found that it had failed to provide sufficient information to justify its position and thus ordered the creation of an independent committee to investigate the petitioners’ allegations. More info here. viii. Interception of communications and access to phone records United Kingdom: In the case of Privacy International v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, et. al., (2016), Specialized Court, the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that the obtaining by Security and Intelligence Agencies of Bulk Communications Data (BCD) from telecom operators was lawful under domestic law, namely Section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, but that both the BCD and the Bulk Personal Datasets (BPD) regimes failed to comply with European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) principles until their existence was made public. The campaign group, Privacy International, claimed that the acquisition and use of bulk personal and communications data by MI5, MI6 and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) infringed the right to private life under Article 8 ECHR. The Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the three security services argued that the use of these powers was lawful and essential for the protection of national security. The Court reasoned that the obtaining of BPD and BCD under rules and arrangements that were not publicly accessible fell foul of the ECHR 3 Previous to this ruling, the Constitutional Court of Serbia ruled on the constitutionality of other provisions of the Law on Electronic Communications in the cases of Serb. Law on Military Security Agency and Military Intelligence Agency, Articles 13.1, 16.2. (2012), Constitutional Court. More info here; Serb. Law on Telecommunications, Article 55.1. (2009), Constitutional Court. More info here. 16