Constitutional Court overturns SPAK ruling on 'Qyno' case: Journalist's right to protect source, constitutional guarantee

The Constitutional Court judges have 'overthrew' SPAK today, ruling in favor of journalist Elton Qyno in his lawsuit regarding the decisions of the Special Court for the seizure of electronic devices owned by him, the search of his home and the personal search following an investigation launched by SPAK to reveal investigative secrets.

In the lawsuit, Qyno sought the annulment of the decisions that led to these decisions, describing them as violations of human rights and freedoms.

Therefore, the court concluded that the controls interfered with freedom of expression and that the journalist's right to protect his source is one of the constitutional guarantees.

Recall that Ora News journalist Elton Qyno was questioned in December 2023 for leaking materials to the media from an investigative file for a series of serious crimes, while after a search of his home, the Prosecution seized his cell phones and electronic devices.

In November last year, the Special Court imposed the measure of "compulsion to appear" against him for the crime of passive corruption in the private sector, based on a proceeding registered by the Special Prosecution for the criminal organization led by Suel Çela.

MEDIA NOTICE

Today, on 22.04.2025, the Constitutional Court considered the case of petitioner Elton Qyno with the aim of annulling court decisions regarding personal, residential and workplace searches, as well as the seizure of items and computer data.

The court, after analyzing the preliminary criteria of the request, concluded that the requester is legitimate and has exhausted the legal remedies available only to challenge the decision that allowed the seizure of computer data, which was challenged by the requester all the way to the High Court.

As regards personal liberty, the Court found that this claim was not related to the decisions on the seizure of computer data. As regards the other claims, the Court considered that the applicant had not exhausted the available legal remedies.

As for the merits of the case, the Court focused on the analysis of the claim of violation of freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution and Article 10 of the ECHR.

Regarding this claim, the Court concluded that freedom of expression includes, among other things, freedom of the press.

The journalist's right to preserve the source of information and not to reveal it is one of the conditions of media freedom.

The protection of journalists' sources is one of the main guarantees of media freedom, as part of the constitutional freedom of expression, so ordering a journalist to reveal his sources may be contrary to the Constitution, unless there is a clear legal basis authorizing it and an overriding public interest that dictates it.

A journalist's right not to reveal their sources is not a privilege, as it essentially protects not only the freedom of the media, within the framework of freedom of expression, but also the public's right to information.

The court concluded that the court decisions, which allowed the seizure of computer data, interfered with the applicant's freedom of expression.

Regarding the criteria for limitation, the Court, applying the test of Article 17 of the Constitution, assessed that the interference was made by law and for a public interest.

However, within the framework of the standards set by the ECHR, the Court assessed that the interference with freedom of expression is not proportional.

In this sense, the Court also considered that the ordinary courts had not reasoned as to why obtaining the data necessary for the investigation could only be achieved through identifying the journalist's source, as a last resort, and why there were no other alternative means to achieve the same goal.

In this regard, the courts have not reasoned regarding the urgency in seizing the applicant's computer data.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously decided to annul the decisions on the seizure of computer data (the decision of the First Instance Court of Appeals No. 501, dated 13.12.2023 and the decisions of the higher courts that have left it in force). 

Likewise, the Court also decided to accept the request for the destruction of all computer data seized with the above-mentioned repealed decisions.

Regarding the claim of violation of the right to private life, the Court considered it appropriate not to stop, as long as it found a violation of the applicant's freedom of expression, thus annulling the above decisions.