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 (see, among many other authorities, Martin and Others v. France, no. 30002/08, § 59, 12 April 2012; Roemen and Schmit, cited above, § 46; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 53, 27 November 2007; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III; Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 93, ECHR 2004-XI; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. Netherlands, cited above, § 50).

The Court has previously held that searches of journalists" homes and workplaces for the purpose of identifying civil servants who had provided the journalists with confidential information constituted interference with their rights under Article 10 § 1 (see Martin and Others v. France, no. 30002/08, § 70, 12 April 2012; Roemen et Schmit, cited above, § 47; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 94, 15 July 2003; Tillack, cited above, § 56; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V., cited above, § 61).

The Court could, for instance, have "wondered" whether the investigating judge could not, initially, have taken less intrusive action, and have noted that the Government had in any case not attempted to demonstrate that without the search and seizure complained of the investigating judge would have been unable to ascertain the identity of the author of the article (compare Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 102, 15 July 2003, and Martin and Others v. France, no. 30002/08, § 86, 12 April 2012).