Information Note on the Court’s case-law 265
August-September 2022
Sergey Sorokin v. Russia - 52808/09
Judgment 30.8.2022 [Section III]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Unjustified search of journalist’s home and seizure of his electronic devices without procedural safeguards protecting confidentiality of journalist sources: violation
Facts – The applicant is a journalist who published an interview with Mr L., a deputy head of the regional Ministry of the Interior, in relation to a scandal involving high-ranking public officials. A criminal case was subsequently opened up against one of them, Mr L., for disclosing information about operational activities which were considered a State secret by law. The Town Court authorised the search of the applicant’s flat and seizure of devices containing information relating to the interview of Mr L. The applicant’s computer, four hard drives and an audio cassette were seized. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi.
Law – Article 10: The search of the applicant’s home and seizure of his electronic devices had constituted an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. The impugned measures had had a general legal basis in domestic law, however, there was a lack of procedural safeguards protecting journalistic sources and addressing the seizure and examination of data carriers:
- Although under the criminal procedure law there had been certain safeguards in place relating to searches and seizures in general, it did not expressly provide for any protection of confidential journalistic sources in that context;
- Further, it had not been clear how, if at all, domestic law provisions, imposing an obligation on editors of a mass media outlet not to disclose any information/sources provided on condition of confidentiality/anonymity, applied in the context of search and seizure measures in respect of a journalist. Although the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had since provided guidance to the lower courts on the matter, that ruling had been issued after the events of the present case.
Accordingly, the Court was not convinced that the domestic legal framework at the relevant time had ensured a requisite legal protection of journalistic sources from arbitrary interferences. However, it did not need to determine the matter, since the interference had in any event not been “necessary in a democratic society” for the following reasons.
That interference had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing crime, since the search and seizure had been ordered in the context of a criminal investigation opened into Mr L.’s alleged disclosure of State information. However, the search had been carried out in the absence of procedural safeguards against interference with the confidentiality of the applicant’s journalistic sources:
- While authorising the search warrant, the Town Court’s reasoning had not contained any balancing exercise, that is, an examination of the question whether the interests of investigation in securing evidence had been sufficient to override the general public interest in the protection of journalistic sources;
- The Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi had limited its review to the examination of the formal lawfulness of the search instead of assessing the necessity and proportionality of the investigating authorities’ actions;
- While authorising the search and seizure measures, the Town Court had not instructed the investigative authorities to use any sifting procedures or otherwise ensure that the unrelated personal and professional information of the applicant had not been accessed by the authorities. Nor had it given any specific reasons for its finding that a search of all the applicant’s data had been necessary for the investigation;
- Reflecting the wording of the warrant, the investigator had seized all of the applicant’s electronic devices which must have contained information unrelated to the criminal case. There was nothing to show that the entirety of that information had not been accessed immediately by the investigative authorities in the absence of any sifting procedure or other methods which could protect the confidentiality of the applicant’s journalistic sources and of other information unrelated to the criminal case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes