SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Grand Chamber could not find that the publication of the tax data en masse, in this case, contributed to a debate of public interest. It also noted that although (and rather exceptionally) certain tax data was publicly accessible in Finland, a distinction was to be drawn between this accessibility and the unlimited extent to which the data was published by the companies as it rendered the data accessible in a manner, and to an extent, not intended by the legislator. The Court concluded that the restrictions were prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the right to privacy of taxpayers. More info here. xiv. Classification of information regarding the impeachment of judges Ghana: In the case of Justice Dery v. Tiger Eye (2016), the Supreme Court of Ghana ruled that article 146(8) of the Constitution mandating that the processes for the impeachment of judges be held in camera prohibited publication of information related to those processes. The Chief Justice and a private company had publicized the names and details of a petition for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court accused of bribery and corruption. The Judge approached the Court, arguing that the publication infringed the Constitution and that this rendered the impeachment process null and void. The Court held that the disclosure of names prior to the Chief Justice’s decision whether a prima facie case for impeachment was made out, violated article 146(8) but that this did not The application before the invalidate the entire impeachment process. The Court Grand Chamber arose from emphasized the need to balance the right to privacy the refusal of two police and confidentiality of the judge with the right of the State to investigate allegations made against judges. departments to disclose to a It also stressed that the restriction on publication of Hungarian NGO the names impeachment processes was limited to the period of of their appointed public the impeachment, and that any permanent injunction against publication would stifle the right to freedom of defenders and the number expression. More info here. of the public defenders’ respective appointments. xv. Public officials’ personal information contained in official records ECtHR: In the case of Magyar Helsinki Bizottsag v. Hungary (2016) the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, in a majority ruling, held that while Article 10 ECHR does not confer on the individual a general right of access to information held by public authorities, such a right may arise in certain cases. The application before the Grand Chamber arose from the refusal of two police departments to disclose to a Hungarian NGO the names of their appointed public defenders and the number of the public defenders’ respective appointments. The Grand Chamber determined that the access to information that was refused in this case was instrumental for the NGO’s exercise of their right to freedom of expression, and met the threshold criteria that have to be met for a refusal to engage Article 10 ECHR. The Grand Chamber went on to find that the police departments’ refusal to disclose the information was not necessary in a democratic society, and therefore amounted to a violation of the NGO’s right to freedom of expression. More info here. 35