SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION III. Case law A. Cases where privacy and free expression have a mutually reinforcing relationship In the following pages, we have systematized cases from different jurisdictions in which the protection of privacy has led to the protection of freedom of expression. Cases are ordered by topic, country, and court of origin. In most cases, the paper does not explain the criteria used by judges to solve them, since the document only systematizes the summaries of the cases in our database that were prepared by researchers and experts affiliated with our program. However, at the end of each case summary, we have included a link to the database entry of the case, in which it is possible to find a more detailed description of the facts of the case and the court’s arguments, a list of references of the international standards and case law cited in the decision, an evaluation of the decision and the link to the original document, among other things. i. National security and surveillance1 ECtHR2: In the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v. The United Kingdom (No. 2) (2021), the Grand Chamber concluded that section 8(4) and Chapter II of the UK’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (“RIPA”) had violated the rights to privacy and freedom of expression of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). The applicants argued about the compatibility of three electronic surveillance programs operated by the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) with the Convention. These programs were the following: (i) Bulk interception under the TEMPORA program, which stored and managed large volumes of data drawn from bearers; (ii) the intelligence-sharing regime with foreign countries, particularly the United States of America through the PRISM and Upstream programs; and, (iii) the procurement of communications data from communications service providers (CSPs). The three complaints were submitted after Edward Snowden’s disclosures revealing surveillance programs managed by both the intelligence services of the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The Grand Chamber found that the UK’s regimes on bulk interception and obtaining data from communications service providers had violated the Convention as the following deficiencies were detected: (i) the absence of independent authorization and oversight (the so-called “end-toend safeguards”); (ii) no categories of selectors were included in the applications for a warrant; (iii) there was no prior internal approval of the selectors linked to an identifiable individual, and 1 The following Courts have also analyzed the impact of national security and surveillance on the rights of freedom of expression and privacy: United Sates: John Doe, Inc. v. Mukasey (2008), Appellate Court. More info here. Kenya: In the case of Okoiti v. Communications Authority (2018), First Instance Court. More info here. United Kingdom: Secretary of State for the Home Secretary v. Watson (2018), Appellate Court. More info here; Davis v. Home Secretary (2015), First Instance Court. More info here. 2 The following text, and the other case summaries here systematized, reproduces the summary and outcome section of the case analysis of this ruling included in our database, as made by experts and researchers affiliated to the program. The full text of the case analysis, and the original judgement, can be accessed through the link at the end. 11