SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION investigation into the leak, the Court found the national authorities had acted inadequately, particularly for failing to interview the Chief of Police of Barcelona, who was crucial to the investigation. Regarding the applicants’ allegation that their right to freedom of expression had been infringed, the Court held that no sanction or chilling effect could be determined from the fact that disciplinary proceedings had taken place. More info here. In the case of Catt v. United Kingdom (2019), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of a peace activist’s right to privacy in relation to personal data which had been collected and retained in an “extremist database” maintained by the police, despite him never having been assessed as a threat. The Court affirmed previous case law which found the broad collection of information to prevent crime and disorder to be lawful and pursue a legitimate purpose. However, in the present case, the retention of personal data without scheduled review and beyond established limits was disproportionate and unnecessary. The Court took issue with the domestic courts’ failure to recognize the sensitive nature of some of the data retained on Catt, the applicant, namely data revealing his political opinions and affiliations with labor unions, which are subject to greater protections. It also called attention to the “ambiguous” nature of legal framework for the database and lack of appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse or arbitrariness. 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 a protection to the right to freedom of expression against the chilling effect of surveillance or overly broad data collection. More info here. Colombia: In the case of Mena v. ICETEX (2013), the Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled that a state agency had violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights by denying her access to its offices because she had previously participated in a peaceful protest in front of their building. The petitioner claimed that she was not allowed to enter the building out of racial discrimination, due to her Afro-Colombian origins. The Court found that the agency, rather than the building’s management as asserted, had collected personal data on the petitioner after she participated in the protests. This violated the petitioner’s habeas data and equality because she was neither informed of the real reason why she was denied access to the building nor of the existence of negative data as a result of her participation in the protest. In the opinion of the Court, the situation was further aggravated because the petitioner was also prevented from conducting legitimate business at the public agency. For all these reasons, the Court decided to protect the petitioner’s fundamental rights and ordered the agency to publicly apologize for its inappropriate conduct, to post a copy of its apology in “a place that could be easily accessed by the public,” to remove from its databases the negative information on the petitioner, and finally, to refrain from carrying out similar practices in the future. More info here. iii. Data transmission to security and intelligence agencies from providers of electronic communication services CJEU: In the cases of Privacy International, La Quadrature du Net and Others (2020), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in two related Grand Chamber judgments, held 13