FRESSOZ AND ROIRE v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 20 general debate on a topic that interested the public (see, for example, the Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 28, § 66). The Court of Cassation has held that questions relating to the finances of public figures, such as heads of major companies, do not concern their private life. That is not something the Government disputed. 51. Not only does the press have the task of imparting information and ideas on matters of public interest: the public also has a right to receive them (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, § 59; Jersild, cited above, p. 23, § 31; and De Haes and Gijsels, cited above, p. 234, § 39). That is particularly true in the instant case, as issues concerning employment and pay generally attract considerable attention. Consequently, an interference with the exercise of press freedom cannot be compatible with Article 10 of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest (see the Goodwin judgment cited above, p. 500, § 39). 52. Admittedly, people exercising freedom of expression, including journalists, undertake “duties and responsibilities” the scope of which depends on their situation and the technical means they use (see, mutatis mutandis, the Handyside judgment cited above, p. 23, § 49 in fine). In the present case the Court of Appeal held that in the light of the nature of the documents and of the checks which Mr Roire says he carried out, the defendants must have known that the documents came from a tax file (see paragraph 22 above) and were therefore confidential. While recognising the vital role played by the press in a democratic society, the Court stresses that journalists cannot, in principle, be released from their duty to obey the ordinary criminal law on the basis that Article 10 affords them protection. Indeed, paragraph 2 of Article 10 defines the boundaries of the exercise of freedom of expression. It falls to be decided whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, the interest in the public's being informed outweighed the “duties and responsibilities” the applicants had as a result of the suspect origin of the documents that were sent to them. 53. The Court must in particular determine whether the objective of protecting fiscal confidentiality, which in itself is legitimate, constituted a relevant and sufficient justification for the interference. In that connection, it must be noted that although the applicants' conviction was based solely on the reproduction in Le Canard enchaîné of documents in the possession of the tax authorities that were held to have been communicated to Mr Fressoz