Article 10 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Key facts of the case:
The applicant applied to the court after A/S “Delfi” had posted hyperlinks that link to the articles that include applicant’s personal data about criminal proceedings in one case and the Data State Inspectorate’s (DSI) refused to open a case in order to stop Delfi from publishing the information.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
Is the refusal of the Data State Inspectorate to impose an obligation on AS "Delfi" to delete sources of information containing the applicant's personal data lawful ?
Outcome of the case:
The court stressed that the information about concrete criminal proceedings can be published since public interest is involved. If the court ruled otherwise, it would be against Section 12 of the Personal Data Protection Law. The court added that these articles do not include information about the investigation materials or other materials that would violate the principle of presumption of innocence. Such information cannot be published.
Administrative Affairs Division of the Supreme Court Senate in the judgment of 22 February 2017 No.SKA-276 stated that when assessing the protection of personal data in the context of Internet publications, the rights of others to freedom of expression, such as the right of the public to receive information, as well as the right of the individuals concerned to disseminate information, also protected by Article 10 of the Convention and Article 10 of the Charter, should also be taken into account. The harmonization of these interests is also provided for in the Law on the Personal Data Protection, i.e., Section 5 states that, in observing the rights of the person to the inviolability of private life and freedom of expression, Articles 7, 8, 9, 11 and 21 of this Law are not applicable if personal data have been processed for journalistic purposes in accordance with the Law "On the Press and Other Mass Media", for artistic or literary purposes and unless otherwise provided by law. In addition, the concept of "journalistic needs" in the context of this article should be interpreted as broadly as possible, including the activities aimed at the dissemination of information, opinions or ideas through any means of dissemination (see, in particular, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, judgment of 16 December 2008, C-73 / 07, ECLI: EU: C: 2008: 727, paragraphs 52-61).
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments 2017.gada 22.februāra spriedumā lietā Nr.SKA-276 atzinusi, ka gadījumos, kad jāvērtē personas datu aizsardzība interneta publikāciju kontekstā, jāņem vērā arī citu personu tiesības uz vārda brīvību, proti, sabiedrības tiesības saņemt informāciju, kā arī konkrēto personu tiesības informāciju izplatīt, kas arī aizsargātas Konvencijas 10.pantā un Hartas 10.pantā. Šo interešu saskaņošana paredzēta arī Fizisko personu datu aizsardzības likumā, proti, tā 5.pantā norādīts, ka, ievērojot personas tiesības uz privātās dzīves neaizskaramību un vārda brīvību, šā likuma 7., 8., 9., 11. un 21.pants netiek piemērots, ja personas dati ir apstrādāti žurnālistiskām vajadzībām saskaņā ar likumu „Par presi un citiem masu informācijas līdzekļiem”, mākslinieciskām vai literārām vajadzībām un ja likumā nav noteikts citādi. Turklāt jēdziens „žurnālistiskas vajadzības” šā panta kontekstā tulkojams iespējami plaši, iekļaujot darbības ar mērķi publiskot informāciju, viedokļus vai idejas ar jebkāda izplatīšanas līdzekļa palīdzību (sal. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2008.gada 16.decembra sprieduma lietā Satakunnan Markkinapörssi un Satamedia, C -73/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:727, 52.–61.punkts).
