European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) : Halet v. Luxembourg
On 14 February 2023 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment that is highly protective for whistle-blowers claiming protection of their right to freedom of expression and information as guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Grand Chamber builds on its earlier case law, integrating the developments which have occurred since the Guja judgment in 2008 (IRIS 2008-6:1/1), and applying the criteria for whistle-blowing protection in the light of the current European and international legal framework. The judgment... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | misc |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2023 |
Schlagwörter: | Law and Political Science / Freedom of expression and information / whistleblowing / Public interest |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27520737 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01H2KCFEYJW6K4CG4QB020A9Z1 |
On 14 February 2023 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment that is highly protective for whistle-blowers claiming protection of their right to freedom of expression and information as guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Grand Chamber builds on its earlier case law, integrating the developments which have occurred since the Guja judgment in 2008 (IRIS 2008-6:1/1), and applying the criteria for whistle-blowing protection in the light of the current European and international legal framework. The judgment refers to the place now occupied by whistle blowers in democratic societies and the leading role they are liable to play by bringing to light information that is in the public interest. After the third section chamber of the ECtHR on 11 May 2021 found no violation of the whistle-blower’s rights in the case at issue (with a robust dissenting opinion by two judges), the Grand Chamber, by a majority of twelve votes to five, finds a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 10 ECHR. The Grand Chamber holds that the public interest in leaking the data outweighed the detrimental effect of the leaks.