Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations imprisonment for a junior officer who had sent a long letter of complaint to his superior (which was not otherwise published) was considered to be disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society”.192 Whistle-blower protection As noted above, freedom of expression is materially linked to the exposure of wrongdoing, including human rights abuses in the armed forces. Over the last decade, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized the need to protect public servants who disclose official wrongdoing, notably in the leading judgment of the Grand Chamber in Guja v. Moldova.193 The case involved the dismissal of a civil servant who had disclosed letters to a newspaper demonstrating political pressure upon the state prosecutor. The Court found that the dismissal violated Article 10 of the ECHR. It also established six criteria that such disclosures need to meet in order to benefit from the protection of Article 10, the first being that the disclosure should correspond to a strong public interest. Additional criteria require the lack of other effective means to remedy the wrongdoing, a public interest override (over a legally imposed duty of confidence) and a situation where the damage caused through disclosure does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Finally, the disclosure should not be motivated by personal grievances or the expectation of personal advantage, and the whistle-blower should have acted in good faith, believe the information to be true and be convinced that the disclosure was in the public interest.194 The Court decided that, in view of the importance of the right to freedom of expression on matters of general interest and of the right of civil servants and other employees to report illegal conduct and wrongdoing at their place of work, the interference with this applicant’s right to freedom of expression was not “necessary in a democratic society”.195 As the Grand Chamber noted: “In a democratic system the acts or omissions of government must be subject to close scrutiny not only of the legislative and judicial authorities but also of the media and public opinion. The interest which the public may have in particular information can sometimes be so strong as to override even a legally imposed duty of confidence.”196 192 European Court of Human Rights, Grigoriades v. Greece, op. cit., note 42. 193 European Court of Human Rights, Guja v. Moldova (Application no. 14277/04, judgment of 12 February 2008). 194 For a summary of the six criteria, see Council of Europe, Thematic Factsheet: Whistleblowers and the Freedom to Impart Information, May 2017, p. 1 195 See also: European Court of Human Rights, Heinish v. Germany, (Application no. 28274/08, judgment of 21 July 2011); Sosinowska v. Poland (Application no. 10247/09, judgment of 18 October 2011); and Matúz v. Hungary (Application no. 73571/10, judgment of 21 October 2014). 196 European Court of Human Rights, Guja v. Moldova, op. cit., note 193, para. 74. 97