SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (iv) the State did not examine other less intrusive measures before activating and implementing electronic surveillance programs, among other safeguards. The judgment expands freedom of expression in the sense that some aspects of the UK’s mass surveillance regime were found unsuitable within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, particularly the Section 8(4) regime and Chapter II regime, previously discussed. Nevertheless, the Chamber could have gone further in its duty to protect and promote freedom of expression. For instance, the Chamber admitted that the section 8(4) regime fell within the margin of appreciation of States since it did not intentionally target journalists. In other words, following the Grand Chamber’s criteria, mass surveillance measures, in general, are compatible with the Convention insofar as they are justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest and are accompanied by the corresponding legal safeguards, authorizations, and arrangements limiting The judgment expands the State Party’s ability to access privileged material. freedom of expression in the sense that some aspects of the UK’s mass surveillance regime were found unsuitable. Likewise, the Chamber noted that the Chapter II regime afforded enhanced protection where data were sought to identify a journalist’s source. However, this meant that any other journalistic information, as long as it does not involve journalistic sources, was left unprotected. In the instant case, since no specific provisions restricted the UK’s ability to access journalistic information when combating “serious crimes,” the Grand Chamber found that the Chapter II regime did not comply with Article 10 of the Convention. More info here. ii. Personal data in governmental databases ECtHR: In the case of M.D. and Others v. Spain (2022), on June 28, 2022, the Third Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously held that the compiling of files by the police in Catalonia on judges who had expressed views on that region’s independence from Spain infringed the judges’ right to privacy. The case concerned the compiling of files by the police in Catalonia on judges who participated in the authorship of a manifesto expressing that under the Constitution and international law, Catalan people should have a say on the region’s independence. Personal information and photographs were subsequently leaked to the press. Following a complaint by the applicants, the Investigating Judge no. 15 of Madrid and the Audiencia Provincial dismissed their claims because there were sufficient grounds for attributing the leak to a particular person. Concurrently, disciplinary proceedings were brought against the applicants for signing the manifesto by the General Council of the Judiciary; however, no sanctions were issued, and the proceedings were closed. In its decision, the ECtHR found that since there was no legal provision authorizing the compiling of such reports, their mere existence contravened Article 8 of the Convention. Regarding the 12