Back in 1992, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) stated that “The pre-eminent role of the press in a State governed by the rule of law must not be forgotten … Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders. In particular, it gives politicians the opportunity to reflect and comment on the preoccupations of public opinion; it thus enables everyone to participate in the free political debate which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society” (Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, para. 43). Moreover, in Goodwin v. UK, the ECtHR stated that “[p]rotection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom [...] Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected” (Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996 (GC), para. 39).

Accordingly, journalists have the right to collect, process, and disseminate ideas and news freely, without interference from public authorities or restrictions.

Emblematic, in this sense, is the case of Nancy Porsia, a journalist specializing in migration issues, who was subjected to telephone interceptions by the Trapani Prosecutor’s Office between 2016 and 2017, despite not being involved in any criminal proceedings. The reason? She was in contact with some members of an NGO engaged in migrant rescue operations who were under investigation for the crime of “illegal immigration,” as well as with sources in Tunisia and Libya. The journalist’s involvement in any potential crimes was therefore indirect, but this did not prevent a fundamental right from being restricted, raising serious questions about compliance with constitutional guarantees and the boundary between judicial investigation and the protection of press freedom.

Porsia, unaware that she was being wiretapped, only discovered at the end of the operations —and several years after the events — that the recorded conversations also included those she had with two lawyers: Serena Romano and Alessandra Ballerini.

For these reasons, in 2021 Nancy Porsia, Serena Romano, and Alessandra Ballerini filed an application with the ECtHR, alleging violations of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Following the submission of the applications, in April 2025 the ECtHR requested clarifications from the Italian government, posing — alongside questions related to the right to privacy and effective remedy — two central questions concerning freedom of the press:

1. Whether the interference with press freedom, through the interception of a journalist not under investigation, and despite the impact on the confidentiality of journalistic sources, was a measure prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society;
2. For what reason two lawyers were also wiretapped, despite no investigation being pending against them and no possibility of opposing the measure in advance, thereby undermining the right to effective judicial protection.

A ruling by the Court may be issued during the course of 2026.