SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION In the case of Center for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine (2020), the Fifth Section of the ECtHR unanimously found that a refusal by the Ukrainian authorities to give NGOs access to information about the education and work history of top politicians as contained in their official CVs, filed as candidates for Parliament, violated the NGO’s right of access to public documents under Article 10 ECHR. In this judgment, the Court highlighted that it was the first case from Ukraine on access to information since the Grand Chamber’s seminal 2016 Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary judgment, and that it raised “novel” issues for Ukraine’s authorities and courts. In its arguments, the Court applied a strict scrutiny under Article 10, recognizing the importance of transparency on matters of public interest. More info here. Paraguay: In the case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Municipality of San Lorenzo (2013), the Supreme Court of Paraguay granted access to the Ombudsman on behalf of a requesting party for disclosure of financial information pertaining to a number of public officials working for the municipality of San Lorenzo. The Ombudsman had argued that the refusal was contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution regarding the right to be informed as well as the country’s human rights obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Supreme Court referred to the Private Information Act which at Article 5 provides that data revealing natural or legal persons’ financial situation may only be released: “(c) where they are contained in public sources of information.” In the Court’s view, “public sources of information are the three branches of the people’s government; or more precisely, the documents in their possession and the persons performing public duties in these three branches.” More info here. Brazil: In the case of Gazeta de Povo v. Baptista et. al. (2016), Judge Rosa Weber of the Supreme Court of Brazil halted several dozen privacy cases that had been brought against a newspaper and its journalists by judges who claimed that their right to privacy had been violated. The cases were brought following newspaper reports that published and criticized the judges’ salaries. In a coordinated action, the judges had launched their claims in far-flung corners of the State requiring the journalists to travel thousands of miles, imposing a heavy financial burden on the defense and making it hard for the journalists to continue their day-to-day reporting. According to Judge Weber, Brazil’s constitutional democratic order does not permit excessive burdens to be placed on individuals or publishers who criticize the functioning of public officials. More info here. India: In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Narain (1975), the Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court’s decision to disclose a government record. Raj Narain requested the government of the State of Uttar Pradesh to disclose the document “Blue Book” which contained security guidelines regarding the Prime Minister of India’s travel. Government officials declined to produce the document, claiming that it was an unpublished official record and against the public interest. The Court reasoned that the document was not an unpublished official record since the government official failed to file an affidavit to claim it as such. In addition, the Court reasoned that it had the authority to determine whether a document is of public interest. More info here. 36