Before Detaining a Journalist, Authorities Must Consider Press Freedom and Public Order Interests – ECHR

In the case of Tožičková v. the Czech Republic (No. 21512/23), decision dated 28 May 2026, the ECHR examined whether the detention of a journalist after her refusal to comply with a police order to leave the territory of a protest she was covering was compatible with Article 10 of the Convention.

The case concerns one of the most sensitive aspects of freedom of expression – the right of journalists to cover events of public significance even in situations where law enforcement agencies take measures to maintain public order.

Case circumstances

The applicant, a professional journalist, was present at an environmental protest at a coal mine on 5 September 2020. She had a visible journalist ID and did not participate in the protest itself.

During the event, some protesters left the agreed route and entered the mining area of the mine, which was marked as a restricted access zone. The journalist followed them to continue covering the events.

After that, the police ordered the protesters to leave the mine territory. When they refused to comply, law enforcement began detaining them. The applicant, along with other journalists, received the same order to leave the area. She refused, citing her status as a journalist and the public necessity to monitor police actions.

The police informed the applicant that she must either leave the scene or be detained. After her refusal, the journalist was escorted out of the mine, detained for approximately two hours, and prohibited from filming during the entire detention.

Two days after the event, the applicant published an article with photos about the protest and police actions.

Subsequently, she challenged the police actions in administrative courts. National courts concluded that the order to leave the mine was disproportionate regarding the journalist but recognized her detention as lawful due to non-compliance with the order. Only the ban on filming during detention was deemed unlawful.

ECHR’s position

The ECHR first recalled the general principles protecting press freedom.

The Court noted that freedom of expression is guaranteed to everyone, but the press performs a special function as the "public watchdog" in a democratic society. The media play a crucial role in ensuring the public's right to receive and disseminate information and ideas.

The ECHR pointed out that journalists are not automatically exempt from complying with laws solely because of their professional status. A journalist who commits an offense does not enjoy special immunity just because they acted in the course of their professional duties.

At the same time, the Court emphasized that any interference with journalistic activity requires particularly strict scrutiny.

The ECHR stressed that journalists must enjoy a broad range of guarantees necessary to perform their professional functions, including protection of the information-gathering process, as gathering information is an integral and protected part of press freedom.

Assessing the circumstances of the specific case, the Court indicated that the applicant's detention had the same practical and irreversible effect as the order to leave the scene, as it deprived her of the opportunity to personally observe the further development of events, gather information, and perform journalistic work.

The ECHR noted that the media play a key role in covering how authorities maintain public order during protests.

The Court pointed out that the presence of journalists ensures accountability of state bodies for their behavior towards protesters and the public, particularly regarding methods of control, dispersal of demonstrations, and maintenance of public order. For this reason, any attempts to remove journalists from protest sites must be subject to particularly thorough scrutiny.

The ECHR confirmed that the applicant intended to collect and disseminate information about the protest and police actions during it, i.e., about matters of public interest. Accordingly, the state's margin of appreciation was narrowed.

The Court noted that under national law, detention was not an automatic consequence of non-compliance with a police order. The police had discretionary powers and were obliged to assess the specific circumstances of the case, the journalist's behavior, her professional status, and the impact of possible measures on freedom of expression.

However, the case materials did not indicate that such an individual assessment was conducted.

The Court paid particular attention to the approach of the national courts.

The ECHR noted that national courts effectively justified the detention solely because the journalist refused to comply with the order to leave the mine, although they later recognized that such an order should not have been addressed to her.

The Court pointed to the lack of a proper balance between the aim of enforcing this order and maintaining public order, on the one hand, and the special role of the journalist and the public's right to receive information on matters of public interest, on the other.

The Court also emphasized that the applicant was clearly identified as a journalist, was separate from the protesters, did not participate in any public order violations, and did not obstruct police work.

Moreover, it should have been obvious to law enforcement that after the police operation ended, the journalist would leave the mine territory along with the protesters, as her sole purpose there was to cover the events and police behavior.

In the Court's view, the national courts did not provide sufficient grounds to justify the applicant's detention.

The ECHR concluded that the detention of the journalist did not meet an urgent social need and could not be considered necessary in a democratic society.

The Court particularly emphasized that the main consequence of this measure was to hinder the applicant in performing journalistic activities, informing the public about matters of public interest, and fulfilling the function of the "public watchdog" regarding police actions towards protesters.

The ECHR unanimously found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Court formulated an important legal position: even if a journalist refuses to comply with a police order, state authorities and national courts must carefully balance the interests of maintaining public order and press freedom.

In the absence of such a balance, detaining a journalist, which effectively prevents coverage of events of public significance, constitutes a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.

Read additionally the current ECHR legal position on fines for offensive statements against officials on TikTok and the limits of freedom of speech on social networks in the article of the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper".

We also recommend familiarizing yourself with the overview of ECHR practice for April, published by the Supreme Court.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.