SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION provides a material protection of the right to freedom of expression against the chilling effect of surveillance or overly broad data collection. More info here. v. Requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to store telecommunications data CJEU: In the case of Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v. Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (2014), the CJEU held that a European Union directive requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to store telecommunications data in order to facilitate the prevention and prosecution of crime was found to be invalid under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Parallel cases were raised in Ireland and Austria following passage of the directive regarding the lawfulness of the measure. Each court forwarded the question to the CJEU where they were consolidated. The CJEU deemed the directive was legitimate in its aims of fighting serious crime but did not pass the proportionality test applied to evaluate the appropriateness of the measures undertaken to achieve the goal. 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 material protection of the right to freedom of expression against the chilling effect of surveillance or overly broad data collection. More info here. vi. National legislations establishing mass surveillance of electronic communications CJEU: In the case of Tele2 Sverige AB v Post- och telestyrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Watson (2017), the CJEU in a preliminary ruling held that national legislation establishing mass surveillance of electronic communications for the purpose of fighting crime violated the right to privacy and the right to data protection. The decision follows requests from UK and Swedish courts after the CJEU´s earlier ruling in Digital Rights Ireland invalidating the EU’s Directive 2006/24/EC on data retention on the grounds that a general obligation to retain certain communications data constituted a serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, and that national rules affecting such obligation were not limited to what was strictly necessary for the purpose of fighting serious crime. The Court reasoned that the EU’s Directive 2002/58 on privacy and electronic communications must be interpreted in light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), namely the rights to privacy and data protection, and that national legislation which, for the purpose of fighting crime, provided for the general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication violated human rights law. The Court further reasoned that access of the competent national authorities to the retained data had to be restricted to fighting serious crime only, with prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority, and the data concerned had to be retained within the EU. More info here. Serbia: In the case of Serbia’s Law on Electronic Communications (2013), the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia found that the provisions of the Law on Electronic Communications, which dealt with data retention, were unconstitutional since they unjustifiably restrict the right to se15