Usually you can start with the constitutions, than with the act on public availability of the information, documents on the classification of state documents (defining the level of secrecy).

Demet

I have attached some lecture notes and an article that may be of use to you.  I have a research interest in common with you here.  I love Famagusta by the way and have visited often.

 Dear Barry Turner

Thank you for your contributions. Also, you should right about Famagusta. This is a great place to live ... I'm glad to hear that. Next time you come, I hope that you also visit our University. Maybe we can meet on this occasion. Thank you so much for your help and documents... 

And also I want to ask you that do you know about the whistleblowers issue or any law about protection of them in UK. I think it was very arguable issue several years ago..ısnt it? Am I knowing wrong? And also I am looking for the important cases that the people whose freedom of expression limited by the reason for protection state secret.. Or people whose investigate by the reason of disclose state secrecy? I can investigate that cases as well. I know observer Guardian case in front of ECtHR. 

Thank You for your valuable contribution again.. 

 Dear Uros 

Thank you for your answer.. I already looked them but I want to learn especially important cases around the world relating state secrecy and limitation reason for freedom of expression of it. 

Demet

Find attached a set of lecture notes on protecting sources.  You will see some cases in the UK where people have given information to the press and the courts have intervened.

I am very interested in visiting the Eastern Mediterranean University, you have a journalism department and I would be very happy to give a guest lecture there.

Protection of whistleblowers has been a live issue in Australia for years. One example- a care worker in a Melbourne home for the disabled concerned about sexual assaults on wheelchair bound inmates hacks into a computer one  night and sends damning ignored cases to a concerned parent, who sends it on to the police. The  care worker is sued by the business owner- he wins, but it is very stressful for him.

Dear Barry Turner

I glad to read that.. Thank you.. Which date you are planning to visit our University? 

I am not sure whether this falls within your interests, but there is legislation from several courts around Europe, concerning state secrets and access to information.

The Court has basically said that even when a document is top secret and cannot be accessed by individuals, nothing can remain secret by the court, because the court is the state.

I do not have specific references, but this principle has been used for example in the context of military secrets in Greece, and in anti-terrorim law cases in the UK.

I see it being relevant also with respect to EU operations at the borders when human rights are at stake (see Frontex operational plans, EU NAVAL mission reports, etc.)

I am not sure whether this falls within your interests, but there is legislation from several courts around Europe, concerning state secrets and access to information.

The Court has basically said that even when a document is top secret and cannot be accessed by individuals, nothing can remain secret by the court, because the court is the state.

I do not have specific references, but this principle has been used for example in the context of military secrets in Greece, and in anti-terrorim law cases in the UK.

I see it being relevant also with respect to EU operations at the borders when human rights are at stake (see Frontex operational plans, EU NAVAL mission reports, etc.)

I am not sure whether this falls within your interests, but there is legislation from several courts around Europe, concerning state secrets and access to information.

The Court has basically said that even when a document is top secret and cannot be accessed by individuals, nothing can remain secret by the court, because the court is the state.

I do not have specific references, but this principle has been used for example in the context of military secrets in Greece, and in anti-terrorim law cases in the UK.

I see it being relevant also with respect to EU operations at the borders when human rights are at stake (see Frontex operational plans, EU NAVAL mission reports, etc.)

I am not sure whether this falls within your interests, but there is legislation from several courts around Europe, concerning state secrets and access to information.

The Court has basically said that even when a document is top secret and cannot be accessed by individuals, nothing can remain secret by the court, because the court is the state.

I do not have specific references, but this principle has been used for example in the context of military secrets in Greece, and in anti-terrorim law cases in the UK.

I see it being relevant also with respect to EU operations at the borders when human rights are at stake (see Frontex operational plans, EU NAVAL mission reports, etc.)

I am not sure whether this falls within your interests, but there is legislation from several courts around Europe, concerning state secrets and access to information.

The Court has basically said that even when a document is top secret and cannot be accessed by individuals, nothing can remain secret by the court, because the court is the state.

I do not have specific references, but this principle has been used for example in the context of military secrets in Greece, and in anti-terrorim law cases in the UK.

I see it being relevant also with respect to EU operations at the borders when human rights are at stake (see Frontex operational plans, EU NAVAL mission reports, etc.)

Some national legislations through what is commonly referred to as ‘state secrets’ prohibit cases or actions from proceeding beyond an initial complaint stage. The assumption is that there are times when the interest of individual litigants must be subordinated to the interest of the public and to the greater good society and country. However, it has been argued that government can engage in torture, can declare it a state secret, and by virtue of that designation alone, avoid any judicial accountability. This is an abuse of the underlying principles of universal and fundamental human rights. Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings. Every person is equally entitled to them without discrimination. They are interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. These include right to education, information, health as well as freedom from torture as well as right to life and the security of the person. Based on this, the European Court of Human Rights has adopted a doctrine to strike a balance, the Margin of Appreciation.

The doctrine of the margin of appreciation is regarded as one of the most prominent judge-made legal constructs in European human rights jurisprudence. It has influenced the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights. It ensures that a minimum level of human rights protection is met in all contracting states, while at the same time allowing some scope for differentiation in light of the particularities of each jurisdiction. The doctrine requires balancing with other rights, or weigh up against other aspects of the public interest. It devolves this balancing exercise in large measure to national courts, thus recognising both their crucial role as the first available forum for the protection of human rights, and their expertise regarding matters pertaining to national law. It is difficult to describe the reach and functioning of this doctrine with precision. It is important to highlight that the margin of appreciation does not provide blanket exceptions in the application of rights. Rather, it ensures that human rights under the Convention system develop in a pluralistic pattern, which is mindful of national contexts, as long as the minimum floor set by the Convention is effectively protected.

Some national legislations through what is commonly referred to as ‘state secrets’ prohibit cases or actions from proceeding beyond an initial complaint stage. The assumption is that there are times when the interest of individual litigants must be subordinated to the interest of the public and to the greater good society and country. However, it has been argued that government can engage in torture, can declare it a state secret, and by virtue of that designation alone, avoid any judicial accountability. This is an abuse of the underlying principles of universal and fundamental human rights. Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings. Every person is equally entitled to them without discrimination. They are interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. These include right to education, information, health as well as freedom from torture as well as right to life and the security of the person. Based on this, the European Court of Human Rights has adopted a doctrine to strike a balance, the Margin of Appreciation.

The doctrine of the margin of appreciation is regarded as one of the most prominent judge-made legal constructs in European human rights jurisprudence. It has influenced the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights. It ensures that a minimum level of human rights protection is met in all contracting states, while at the same time allowing some scope for differentiation in light of the particularities of each jurisdiction. The doctrine requires balancing with other rights, or weigh up against other aspects of the public interest. It devolves this balancing exercise in large measure to national courts, thus recognising both their crucial role as the first available forum for the protection of human rights, and their expertise regarding matters pertaining to national law. It is difficult to describe the reach and functioning of this doctrine with precision. It is important to highlight that the margin of appreciation does not provide blanket exceptions in the application of rights. Rather, it ensures that human rights under the Convention system develop in a pluralistic pattern, which is mindful of national contexts, as long as the minimum floor set by the Convention is effectively protected.

Michael many thanks- the UN has condemned Australia's refugee policy but  has the ECHR said anything- not in their purview I suppose- any useful cases in Europe eg putting up walls?

Hello,

In the EU Law context, the Court of Justice has balanced the right of public access to documents with the right of a Member State to request non-disclosure, holding that the right of the State is not an unconditional right of veto: Case C-64/05P Kingdom of Sweden v Commission of the European Communities and Others [2007] ECR I-11389.

Obviously this only "works" where the document in question is held by one of the EU institutions, but I thought it might cast some further light on the issue for you.

Hope this may be of some help.

Best regards,

Richard

Thank you very much Brother Leith Keegan

I will follow the articles...

Please let me know if these references/sites are helpful to you:

1.  State Secrets, Impunity and Human Rights Violations

projects.essex.ac.uk/ehrr/V8N1/Danisi.pdf

by C Danisi - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles

State Secrets, Impunity and Human Rights Violations: Restriction of .... Milan against US and Italian agents accused of involvement in Abu Omar's abduction after .....

http://www.statewatch.org/cia/documents/milan-tribunal-abu-omar.pdf .

2.  State Secrecy and Human Rights Violations - BOA Bicocca Open ...

https://boa.unimib.it/bitstream/10281/104988/4/phd_unimib_775180.pdf

by E Carpanelli - ‎2016 - ‎Related articles

State secrecy vis-à-vis violations of fundamental human rights: An emerging ...... concerning espionage or divulging State secrets, Doc. 11031 of ..... https://www. fas.org/sgp/eprint/knowledge.pdf (last accessed on 24 February 2016). 25 Act No .

3.  State Secrets and Human Rights. The right to ... - Freedominfo.org

www.freedominfo.org/documents/Russia_Access_Information_Pavlov.pdfCached

Access to Information: State Secrets and Human Rights. The right to ... In 1996, the Constitutional Court of Russia recognized the right of all attorneys to ..... wave of espionage trials, which were initiated by the FSB (formerly KGB) against.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

كنت اتمنى الإجابة على هذا السؤال