Brazilian 2014 Court Decisions: Most Important Developments
Introduction Brazil does not yet have a firmly established tradition on freedom of speech cases. This may be due to the country’s colonial origin, or…
Thailand: Freedom of Expression One Year after the Coup
On May 22, 2014 a group of military officers under the name, “National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)” deposed the interim government of Yingluck…
Transparency, freedom of information and the rule of law: threatened journalists and protection mechanisms
On May 8th 2018, in recognition of the 25th World Press Freedom Day, Ossigeno per l’Informazione and the Authority for Communications Guarantees (AGCOM), in collaboration with…
The Case of Ruslan Sokolovsky
Call for Proposals: CYRILLA Applied Research and Advocacy Grants
CYRILLA Applied Research and Advocacy Grants Contact Grant Baker, CYRILLA Project Director (grant@smex.org) Background The CYRILLA Collaborative will be awarding 5 grants of $5,000 to…
Morelli v. Noticias Uno
Kablis v. Russia
Russia: Content Analysis Serves as a Tool of Biased Courts
Magomednabi Magomedov, a Salafist imam, received a five-year prison term from a military court for giving an allegedly unlawful sermon in 2016 in Dagestan. To help…
Department of Health v. Information Commissioner and Rt Hon John Healey MP and Nicholas Cecil
The U.K. First-Tier Tribunal of the General Regulatory Chamber for Information Rights held that a Transitional Risk Register (“TRR”), relating to sweeping changes to the country’s National Health System (“NHS”), should be disclosed under The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) but that a Strategic Risk Register, relating to the changes, was exempt from disclosure. The court found that a public authority must release risk registers evaluating health policy if the request is made when policy consultation and formulation has been largely completed, but not during a period of consultation and when the register includes more sensitive policy information. In the present case, the Court ruled in favor of the public interest in transparency because at the time of the TRR request, the Report largely covered operational and implementation risks being faced by the Department of Health (“DOH”), rather than direct policy considerations. On the other hand, the Court found that the public interest in the Government having safe space to formulate policy took precedence at the time of the SRR request because the request was made at a time when the government was engaged in ongoing policy deliberations.