Miranda v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors  EWHC 255 (Admin) (19 February 2014): "Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media BV v Netherlands (2012) 34 BHRC 193 concerned the targeted surveillance of journalists with a view to obtaining knowledge of their sources. There was no prior review by an independent body; post factum review could not "restore the confidentiality of journalistic sources once it is destroyed" (paragraph 101). "The Court thus finds that the law did not provide safeguards appropriate to the use of powers of surveillance against journalists with a view to discovering their journalistic sources. There has therefore been a violation of Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention" (paragraph 102).
Nagla v Latvia  ECHR 688 concerned the execution of a search warrant at a journalist's home; the search warrant was retrospectively approved by an investigating judge. At paragraph 90 the court stated:
"The Court notes that unlike in the Sanoma Uitgevers case, the investigating judge has the authority under Latvian law to revoke the search warrant and to declare such evidence inadmissible… Moreover… the investigating judge also has the power to withhold the disclosure of the identity of journalistic sources… The Court considers that the last two elements pertaining to the investigating judge's involvement in an immediate post factum review are sufficient to differentiate this case from the above-mentioned Sanoma Uitgevers case (see also Telegraaf Media… where a similar distinction was made). The Court, therefore, does not deem it necessary to examine the Government's submissions concerning the role of the supervising prosecutor in authorising searches under the urgent procedure."
The Coalition Interveners lay emphasis on the fact that the judge reviewing the case "under the urgent procedure on the day following the search" (paragraph 89) was in a position to prevent disclosure of the journalist's source before any use was made of it." 'via Blog this'