Emma de Vries writes annotation for EHRC-updates
Emma de Vries, PhD candidate in the Department of European Law at Leiden University, has written an annotation for EHRC updates on the ECHR judgment in Suprun and Others v. Russia (June 18, 2024, case number 58029/12).
The case concerns several requests for information made to the Russian Secret Service (FSB), where the archives of its predecessor (KGB) are kept. Broadly speaking, the various requests for information are all aimed at retrieving historical information in order to gain a better picture of gross human rights violations during the Soviet era, or to shed new light on the fate of historical figures, such as Raoul Wallenberg, who is said to have saved the lives of some 30,000-100,000 Hungarian Jews during World War II. None of the individual complainants’ requests are met with a positive response from the FSB and the national judicial authorities, each invoking the protection of the personal rights of individuals featuring in the requested information, or of their relatives.
In each case, the Russian judicial authorities in the domestic proceedings only verify compliance with Russian law, without adequately considering the importance of historiography and historical research and without fairly balancing the interests of having access to information with protection of the privacy of specific individuals. The ECtHR held that there was an unjustified violation of Article 10 ECHR.
The capacity of the applicants - for the most part (academic) researchers, or other actors with a role as a public watchdog - is of great importance in this respect. Because the Court's ruling emphasises the importance of access to information for historical researchers, this case is not only important for Article 10 ECHR and access to information in a general sense, but also for the protection of a rather understudied right in this context: academic freedom. The protection of academic freedom under the ECHR relies on an accumulation of several ECtHR rulings in which academic freedom is (implicitly) at issue; the note argues that Suprun and Others v. Russia should be considered among those earlier cases.
The note can be read here. Login required.
An earlier note by Emma de Vries dealt with Hurbain v. Belgium, available here. Login required.