Freedom of expression and standards of prosecutor’s activity: case law of the European Court of Human Rights

The article analyzes the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the correlation of ethical standards of prosecutorial activity with the right to freedom of thought and speech. The author examines the most resonant ECHR cases concerning public statements by prosecutors – Kövesi v. Romania, Goryaynova v. Ukraine, Brisc v. Romania, Kayasu v. Turkey, and Guja v. Moldova. In these cases, the applicants challenged the unlawful actions of the authorities, including dismissal from office, through their public statements (publication of an open letter to the Prosecutor General on the Internet, interviews with the local press, publication of an official press release, public statements criticizing legislative reforms, etc.). In all cases, the Court found a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) and recognized the punishments imposed on the applicants as not in accordance with the law. The author points out that a prosecutor’s culture of communication, which includes public speeches, interaction with the media, and publications on the Internet, is an integral part of his or her professional ethics. This is recognized in both national (the Code of Professional Ethics and Conduct for Prosecutors) and international (the Budapest Guidelines, the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe) legislation. According to the European Court of Human Righrs, prosecutors, like other public officials, have the right to freedom of thought and speech, free expression of their views and beliefs. However, this right is not absolute. It is limited by their professional status, the obligation to keep professional secrets, not to disseminate confidential information, and to maintain the authority of the judiciary. However, this does not mean that prosecutors do not have the right to express their position on issues of significant public interest (reforms in the justice sector, corruption in government, abuse of power by senior officials, etc.) The main criteria applied by the Court in such cases are legality and necessity in a democratic society.