Journalists across Europe could be allowed entry to migrant detention centres to report on living conditions there, after a landmark European Court of Human Rights judgment.

Hungarian journalist Illés Szurovecz's freedom of expression was violated when he was denied access to the Debrecen Reception Centre in 2015, the European Court ruled. 

The judgmental also highlighted that his research work was an essential part of press freedom and had to be protected.

The case is not final yet, and is open to appeal for the next three months. It would become legally binding across Europe once this period is over.

In Malta, access to centres such as at Safi, where migrants have recently held protests begging to be released, are severely restricted for journalists and NGOS. 

There were several protests at Malta's detention centre in Safi last month. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

Kahin Ismail, director of UNHCR, said the ruling could mean that in three months Maltese journalists as well as those in other European states could be allowed less restricted access to detention centres.

“When it becomes a final judgement then of course it has the effect of a law in Europe and if you then request access to a detention centre in Malta and are denied you can then cite this judgement," he said.

In this case, the journalist had asked for access to the now closed Debrecen Reception Centre to report on the living conditions of asylum seekers there.

He made it clear that he would seek prior consent and written authorization of those he wished to photograph and interview.

His request was rejected for reasons concerning the private life and security of asylum-seekers. In particular, many of those in reception centres had fled some form of persecution and could therefore be put at risk if exposed in the media.

The Court found that the authorities' interference had been lawful and its aim, protecting the private lives of asylum-seekers, had been legitimate. However, it ruled that the reasons given for such a restriction on the applicant’s freedom of expression, although relevant, had not been sufficient.

It highlighted that creating obstacles to journalists’ access to information could discourage or even prevent them from providing accurate and reliable information to the public and consequently from playing their vital role as “public watchdogs”. 

Furthermore, an essential part of protecting freedom of the press was ensuring journalists’ ability to carry out research work.