法律翻译｜彭博社诉ZXC案

译者｜田薇 上海交通大学民商法硕士

一审｜汪晨涵 复旦大学法律硕士

二审｜俞悠悠 国际关系学院法本

编辑｜陈婉菁 中国政法大学硕士

         邵娅绮 浙江工商大学本科

责编｜戚琳颖 大连海事大学本科

原文链接：

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/bloomberg-lp-v-zxc/

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom unanimously dismissed an appeal holding the Appellant liable for violation of respondent’s right to privacy in relation to information relating to a criminal investigation into his activities. The Respondent, ZXC, and his employer were the subject of a criminal investigation by a UK Legal Enforcement Body. The Appellant, Bloomberg, obtained a copy of the confidential Letter of Request sent by the enforcement body to a foreign state seeking information and documents relating to the respondent, and published an article referring to the fact that information had been requested in respect of the Respondent and detailing the matters in respect of which he was being investigated. The Supreme Court held that a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation. It reasoned that a balancing exercise must be done in such cases to determine whether respondent’s Article 8 right to privacy or the publisher’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression should prevail, with neither of the right having the right of precedence over the other.

英国最高法院一致驳回上诉人的上诉，并认定上诉人侵犯了被上诉人的隐私权，即被上诉人的活动受到刑事调查而产生的相关信息的隐私权。被上诉人ZXC和其雇主是英国执法机构刑事调查的对象。上诉人彭博社获取了该执法机构向外国发送的一份调取被上诉人相关信息和文件的机密请求书，并且发布了一篇文章提及被上诉人相关信息被调取的事情，披露了被上诉人被调查的细节。最高法院认为，接受刑事调查的人在被指控前应有对调查事项能够保持隐私的合理预期，因为在这种情况下必须进行权衡考量，以确定被上诉人根据（《欧洲人权公约》）第8条享有的隐私权和出版商根据第10条享有的言论自由权何者优先，任何一项权利都不能凌驾于另一项权利之上。

The Appellant, Bloomberg LP, is an international financial software, data and media organisation headquartered in New York and renowned for its financial journalism and reporting, whereas the Respondent (“ZXC”) is a citizen of the United States who worked for a publicly listed company which operated overseas in several foreign countries (“X Ltd.”). The respondent was the chief executive of one of its regional divisions.

上诉人彭博社是一家总部在纽约的国际金融软件、数据和媒体组织，以金融新闻和报道闻名。被上诉人（ZXC）是一名美国公民，曾经为一家在海外多国经营业务的上市公司（“X有限公司”）工作。被上诉人是该公司其中一个地区分部的首席执行官。

While working for the company, the respondent and his employer were subjected to a criminal investigation by a UK Legal Enforcement Body (“UKLEB”) in 2013 pertaining to the integrity of various transactions involving X Ltd. Notably, UKLEB’s investigation concerned possible offences of corruption, bribery, offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and various offences under the Fraud Act 2006 together with conspiracy to commit certain offences. During that investigation, in 2016, UKLEB sent a confidential 15-page Letter of Request (the “letter”) to the authorities of a foreign state, in accordance with the provisions concerning mutual legal assistance under the United Nations Convention against Corruption (the “Convention”). The letter sought, among other things, information and documents relating to ZXC, including banking and business records in relation to X Ltd. and a number of individuals, one of whom was the respondent. The letter also contained a detailed assessment of the evidence the UKLEB had so far obtained together with initial conclusions the UKLEB had reached on what it believed was demonstrated by the evidence. The Letter expressly requested that its existence and contents remain confidential with the following statement under the head of “Confidentiality”:

在为该公司工作期间，上诉人和该公司于2013年接受了英国一家执法机构（“UKLEB”）的刑事调查，该项调查涉及X有限公司多项交易的诚信问题。值得注意的是，UKLEB的调查可能涉及到腐败、贿赂，2002年《犯罪所得法》、2006年《反欺诈法》规定的各种罪行，以及共谋实施的某些罪行。在该调查期间，根据《联合国反腐败公约》（《公约》）有关法律互助的规定，UKLEB于2016年向某外国当局发出了一份长达15页的机密请求书（“请求书”）。此外，该请求书还要求提供与ZXC有关的信息和文件，包括与X有限公司和一些个人（被上诉人就是其中之一）相关的银行和商业记录。该请求书还包含了对UKLEB迄今所获证据的详细评估，以及UKLEB通过证据内容得出的初步结论。该请求书明确要求对其的存在和内容进行保密，并在“保密性”这一标题下作了如下说明：

“… In order not to prejudice the investigation, I request that no person (including any of the above named subjects) is notified by the competent authorities in your country of the existence and contents of this Letter of Request and any action taken in response to it. […]

The reason for requesting confidentiality is that it is feared that, if the above suspect [sic] or an associated party became aware of the existence of this request or of action taken in response to it, actions may be taken to frustrate our investigation by interference with documents or witnesses. […]”

“为了不妨碍调查，我请求贵国当局不向任何人（包括上述任何主体）告知本请求书的存在、内容以及基于本请求书采取的任何行动。[...]要求保密的原因是，我们担心，如果上述嫌疑人[原文如此]或相关方意识到这一请求的存在或为回应这一请求而采取的行动，或许会采取干预文件或证人的行动以阻碍我们的调查。[...]”

A Bloomberg journalist nevertheless obtained the copy of the letter, and Bloomberg published an article in the autumn of 2016 (“autumn article”) which explained that the respondent had been interviewed by the UKLEB as part of its investigation. The article also referred to the fact that information had been requested in respect of the Respondent relating to the activities of X Ltd. in a particular country for which the respondent’s division was responsible. In particular, the article revealed confidential information on two counts:

然而，彭博社的一名记者还是拿到了这封请求书的复印件。彭博社在2016年秋季发表了一篇文章（“秋季文章”），这篇文章称，作为调查的一部分，被上诉人已经接受了UKLEB的讯问。该文章还提到，被上诉人需要提供有关X有限公司在被上诉人所属部门负责的相关国家的业务活动信息。特别是，该文章披露了两个方面的机密信息：

(i) the fact that the UKLEB had asked the authorities of the foreign state to provide banking and business records relating to four companies in its investigations into the respondent (and others) and wanted the information about the respondent from the foreign government; and

(ii) the details of the deal that the UKLEB was investigating in relation to the respondent, including that: (a) the UKLEB considered the respondent had provided false information to the X Ltd.’s board on the value of an asset in a potential conspiracy to which another named officer of X Ltd. may have been complicit; (b) the UKLEB believed that the respondent had committed fraud by false representation by dishonestly representing that [name] was a valuable asset based on data for an entirely different asset; and (c) the UKLEB was seeking to trace the onward distribution of [a substantial sum of money] paid into [a bank account] as it believed that these monies were the proceeds of a crime carried out by the respondent.

(i) UKLEB在调查被上诉人（和其他人）时，要求外国当局提供与四家公司有关的银行和商业记录，并希望从外国政府获得有关被上诉人的信息；

(ii) UKLEB正在调查的与被上诉人有关的交易细节，包括： (a) UKLEB认为被上诉人就一项资产的价值向X有限公司的董事会提供了虚假信息，而X公司的另一名具名的领导可能是此事背后的同谋；(b) UKLEB认为被上诉人根据完全不同的资产数据，谎称【名称】是一项有价值的资产，从而通过虚假陈述进行欺诈；(c) UKLEB正在追踪支付到【银行账户】的【巨额资金】的后续分配情况，因为它认为这些资金是被上诉人的犯罪所得。

（图片来源于网络）

Bloomberg had also made contact with UKLEB prior to publication and was informed by the enforcement body that “the publication of material pertaining to a LoR will pose a material risk of prejudice to a criminal investigation” [para. 18-20].

彭博社还在信息公布前联系了UKLEB，并被该执法机构告知，“公布与LoR有关的材料将对刑事调查构成实质性的损害风险”[第18-20段]。

The respondent sought an interim injunction restraining publication of the article but was refused by a judgment dated February 2, 2017. The reserve judgment specifically noted that it was likely that any infringement of the respondent’s privacy rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) would be held to be outweighed by Bloomberg’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.

被上诉人请求临时禁令以限制该文章的发表，但被2017年2月2日的判决驳回。该保留判决特别指出，对被上诉人基于《欧洲人权公约》（“ECHR”）第8条享有的隐私权的任何侵犯行为，都有可能被彭博社基于ECHR第10条享有的言论自由权抵消。

However, the respondent’s application for damages and injunctive relief on the grounds of misuse of private information was successful in a subsequent decision by Nicklin J. dated April 17, 2019  [ZXC v. Bloomberg LP [2019] EWHC 970 (QB)]. The judge in that case found that contrary to the 2017 decision, a person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police investigation up to the point of charge. He also noted that the issue of corruption in the foreign state and possible involvement in that corruption by X Ltd. and its employees/officers was a matter of “high public interest”, and thus, a balancing exercise between the respondent’s Article 8 right to privacy and the publisher’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression was required. Having carried out this balancing exercise, the judge concluded that Bloomberg had not (either individually or collectively) provided sufficient countervailing justification to outweigh the respondent’s reasonable expectation of privacy. On the contrary, “the public interest clearly favoured upholding and maintaining the confidentiality of the information in the LoR” [para 32]. The view of Nicklin J. was upheld in the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeals which dismissed all grounds forwarded by the appellant.

然而，在Nicklin法官于2019年4月17日作出的后续判决中，被上诉人成功地以“滥用个人信息”为由，申请了损害赔偿和禁令救济。该案法官认为，不同于2017年的判决，在起诉之前当事人对警方调查中涉及的隐私确实有保密的合理期待。他也注意到，外国的腐败问题和X有限公司及其雇员/高管可能参与腐败的问题是一个“高度公共利益”的问题，因此，需要在被上诉人基于第8条享有的隐私权和出版商基于第10条享有的言论自由权之间达成平衡。权衡之后，法官得出的结论是，彭博社并没有（单独或共同地）提供充足的反驳理由来抵消被上诉人对其隐私（能够得到保护）的合理期望。相反，“公众利益显然支持保护LoR中信息的机密性”[第32段]。上诉法院的判决维持了Nicklin法官的观点，驳回了上诉人提出的全部诉讼理由。

Bloomberg thus appealed to the Supreme Court.

因此，彭博社向最高法院提出上诉。

Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens (with Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Sales concurring) delivered the judgment of the UK Supreme Court. The principle issue before the Court was whether, and to what extent, a person who has not been charged with an offence can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to information that relates to a criminal investigation into their activities.

Hamblen大法官和Stephens大法官（Reed大法官、Lloyd-Jones大法官和Sales大法官表示赞同）作出了英国最高法院判决。法院审理的主要问题是，一个没有被指控犯罪的人是否以及在何种程度上可以合理地期望拥有与其活动有关的刑事调查信息的隐私权。

（图片来源于网络）

Article 8 of the ECHR provides for a right to respect for private and family life, subject to certain restrictions. Article 10, on the other hand, grants everyone the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) contains specific provisions regarding journalistic material, requiring courts to give regard to the right to freedom of expression in ECHR, to the extent to which the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published.

《欧洲人权公约》第8条规定了私人和家庭生活受尊重的权利，但受到某些限制。另一方面，第10条赋予每个人言论自由的权利，包括持有主张的自由、不受公共权力干涉地接受及传递信息和思想的自由。1998年《人权法案》（“HRA”）第12条载有有关新闻材料的具体规定，该规定要求法院考虑《欧洲人权公约》中的言论自由权（包括该材料已经或即将被公众获取的程度，发表该材料是否符合或是否将会符合公共利益）。

The Court cited Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446 to reiterate the well-established two-stage test to determine if there has been a misuse of private information. According to it, at stage one, the question is whether the respondent has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the relevant information considering the circumstances of the case. Such circumstances are likely to include, but are not limited to, those identified in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Murray (“Murray Factors”). If so, at stage two, the question is whether that expectation is outweighed by the countervailing interest of the publisher’s right to freedom of expression. This involves a balancing exercise between the respondent’s Article 8 ECHR right to privacy and the publisher’s Article 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression, having due regard to section 12 of the U.K. Human Rights Act 1998.

法院引用了Murray v Express Newspapers plc案，重申了判定是否存在滥用个人信息的两阶段测试。根据该测试，第一阶段应当分析的问题是被上诉人基于案件情况是否对相关信息有合理的隐私期待。这些情况可能包括但不限于上诉法院在Murray案中所确认的情况（“Murray因素”）。如果存在（合理隐私期待），第二阶段需要分析的问题就是这种合理期待是否能够被出版商言论自由权产生的对抗利益所抵消。这要求（法院）在适当考虑1998年英国《人权法案》第12条的前提下，对被上诉人基于《欧洲人权公约》第8条享有的的隐私权和出版商基于《欧洲人权公约》第10条享有的言论自由权进行权衡。

The court first considered whether the decision of the Court of Appeal was correct in holding whether a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation. It affirmed that certain types of information can be regarded as giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, including inter alia, personal financial and tax related information; personal communications and correspondence; past involvement in criminal behaviour; and involvement in crime as a victim or a witness. Whereas, some other types of information will not normally trigger reasonable expectation of privacy, such as for instance, corporate information, involvement in current criminal activity, a person’s mis-performance of a public role, information deriving from a hearing of a criminal case conducted in public, and the identity of an author. The court also noted that a relevant circumstance will be the extent to which the information is in the public domain [para. 52-55].

法院首先考虑了上诉法院的决定是否正确，即接受刑事调查的人在被指控之前是否应对与该调查有关的信息有合理的隐私期望。上诉法院确认，某些类型的信息可被视为能够引起对隐私的合理期待的。这些信息包括个人财务和税务相关信息，个人通信和信件，过去参与犯罪的信息以及作为犯罪受害者或证人的信息。而其他一些类型的信息通常不会引发对隐私的合理期待，如公司信息、参与现阶段的犯罪活动、作为公共角色的不良表现、公开审理的刑事案件获得的信息、作者的身份等等。该法院还指出另外一个相关的考量因素是该信息在多大程度上属于公共领域。

Bloomberg advanced four arguments challenging the general rule or “legitimate starting point” (as Court of Appeals had noted) that a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation.

彭博社提出了四个论点，对一般规则或 “合法起点”（如上诉法院所指出的）提出质疑，即接受刑事调查的人在被指控之前，对调查相关的信息有合理的隐私期望。

Bloomberg submitted that given the public’s ability to observe the presumption of innocence, the application of a general rule is not proper as it exaggerates the extent to which publishing the information can cause damage to the respondent’s reputation. Consequently, Bloomberg argued that lower courts significantly overstated the capacity of publication of the information to cause damage to the respondent’s reputation given the public’s ability to observe the presumption of innocence.

彭博社认为，鉴于公众遵守无罪推定原则的能力，适用一般规则是不恰当的，因为它夸大了信息的公布对被告的声誉造成损害的程度。因此，彭博社认为，鉴于公众遵守无罪推定原则，下级法院夸大了信息公布对被告声誉造成损害的能力。

（图片来源于网络）

In this regard, the Supreme Court underscored that presumption of innocence was a legal presumption applicable to criminal trials. However, in this case, the context was different: the question being how others, including a person’s inner circle, their business or professional associates and the general public, will react to the publication of information that that person is under criminal investigation. Relying on jurisprudence, the court concluded that the person’s reputation will ordinarily be adversely affected causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life such as the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings. Accordingly, the court rejected the appellant’s submission. [para. 100-109]

在这方面，最高法院强调，无罪推定是适用于刑事审判的法律推定。然而在本案中，情况有所不同：问题是，如果公布此人正在接收刑事调查的信息，其他人（包括这个人的核心圈子、他们的商业或专业伙伴和一般公众）将对此作出何种反应。根据判例，法院得出结论，该人的声誉通常会受到不利影响，从而损害个人享受私人生活被尊重的权利，如与其他人建立和发展关系的权利。因此，法院驳回了上诉人的陈述。[第100-109段]

Bloomberg argued that the lower courts’ reasoning to uphold the general rule of privacy, namely the “human characteristic” to equate suspicion or investigation with guilt on the assumption that there is “no smoke without fire” [para. 74] was contrary to established principles of defamation law which states that an ordinary individual is not unduly suspicious and is capable of distinguishing suspicion or investigation from guilt. As a result, Bloomberg argued that the court incorrectly applied the test of an unduly suspicious hypothetical reader, who always adopts a “bad meaning”.

彭博社认为，下级法院支持一般隐私规则的论证，是假设“人性特征”会把怀疑或调查等同于有罪，也就是说“无风不起浪”，这样的（论证）违反了诽谤法的既定原则，即一个人不会去过度怀疑，并且能够将怀疑和调查与犯罪区分开来。因此，彭博社认为，法院错误地采信了一个持有过度怀疑立场的假想读者的验证标准，这样的读者总是抱有“恶意”。

On this front, the court noted that since ZXC did not bring a claim for defamation, the case did not stand. The respondent’s claim pertained to the tort of misuse of private information which was a separate tort with different constituent elements and a distinct purpose, unlike in defamation where the purpose of the tort of misuse of private information is not only to protect an individual from the publication of untrue information but also to protect an individual’s private life in accordance with Article 8 ECHR, regardless of the truth or falsity of the information. The court considered it inappropriate to read across the concept of a hypothetical reader from the tort of defamation into the tort of misuse of private information and thus, rejected this submission [para. 110-113].

在这方面，法院指出，由于ZXC没有提出诽谤索赔，该案不成立。被上诉人的诉讼涉及滥用个人信息的侵权行为，这是一种独立的侵权行为，有着不同的构成要件和目的。与诽谤不同，滥用个人信息侵权的目的不仅是保护个人免受不真实信息发布，而且是根据《欧洲人权公约》第8条保护个人的私人生活，无论这些信息是否真实。法院认为，将诽谤侵权中假想读者的概念从诽谤侵权理解为滥用私人信息的侵权是不合适的。因此，法院驳回了这一主张[第110-113段]。

Bloomberg submitted that the lower courts were incorrect to hold that information of an individual being subject to criminal investigation is private because it is potentially damaging to his/her reputation. On the contrary, it argued that such information is not protected because of its effect on a person’s reputation, rather it is protected since it belongs to a part of the respondent’s life which is of no-one else’s concern.

彭博社认为，下级法院认为受刑事调查的个人信息属于个人隐私的观点是不正确的，因为这些信息（的公开）可能会损害他/她的名誉。相反地，彭博社主张这些信息之所以应当受到保护，并不是因为它对个人名誉有影响，而是因为这些信息是被上诉人生活的一部分，与其他人无关。

（图片来源于网络）

However, the court considered this view of the protection afforded by Article 8 of the ECHR as “unduly restrictive”. Relying on Denisov v Ukraine (Application No. 76639/11) (unreported) 25 September 2018, S and Marper v United Kingdom (Application Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04) (2008) 48 EHRR 50, Gillberg v Sweden (Application No. 41723/06) (2012) 34 BHRC 247 and Bărbulescu v Romania (Application No. 61496/08) (2017) 44 BHRC 17, it held that the term “private life” can also include principle activities of a professional or business nature. Thus, publication of information about an official criminal investigation into a person’s business activities can fall within the concept of “private life” under Article 8 ECHR. In holding this, the court also concluded that the notion of “private life” should cover a right to respect for reputation, and thus Article 8 applies, provided the attack on reputation attains a certain level of seriousness and prejudices a person’s right to respect for private life [para. 114-125].

然而，法院认为上述关于《欧洲人权公约》第8条所提供的保护的观点是“过度限缩”。根据Denisov v Ukraine案，Marper v United Kingdom案，Gillberg v Sweden案和Bărbulescu v Romania案，法院认为“私人生活”一词也可以包含职业或商业性质的主要活动。因此，公布关于对个人商业活动的进行官方刑事调查信息可能落入《欧洲人权公约》第8条中“私人生活”的概念范畴内。在认定这一点时，法院也得出了如下结论：“私人生活”的概念应当包含名誉受到尊重的权利。因此，只要对名誉的攻击达到一定的严重程度并损害了个人尊重私人生活的权利，第8条就适用。

Bloomberg also argued that while private life can include activities of a professional or business nature, the private character of those activities did not extend to a businessman who is actively involved in the affairs of large public companies, such as the respondent (relying on Fayed v United Kingdom (Application No 17101/90) (1994) 18 EHRR 393). This is because such individuals are not in that sector of their lives private “individuals”, but rather they knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their acts by the media. The court, however, noted that while the respondent’s status meant that the limits of acceptable criticism of him were wider than in respect of a private individual, there is nevertheless a limit. The factor is not determinative in itself and should only form part of the stage one analysis. The Supreme Court emphasized that consideration of “the attributes of the claimant (respondent)” must be balanced against the effect of publication of the information on him [para. 136-141].

彭博社还认为，尽管私人生活能够包含带有职业或商业性质的活动，这些活动的私人性质也无法延伸到像被上诉人这种活跃在各种大型上市公司事务中的商人身上。因为这些个体并非是处于私人生活中的“个人”，而是明知自己的一举一动会受到媒体审视的个人。然而法院指出，虽然被上诉人的身份意味着他可以接受批评的限度比私人的要宽，但仍然有一个限度。该因素并非是决定性的，而且只能构成第一阶段分析的一部分。最高法院强调，“上诉人（被上诉人）的属性”必须与公开信息对其造成的影响达成平衡。

Bloomberg claimed that the lower courts failed to apply the correct legal test at stage one analysis, which involved a consideration of “all the circumstances of the case” as against grant of pre-ordained weight to one circumstance (i.e. the effect on the respondent). Bloomberg argued that the lower courts incorrectly confined the Murray factor of “the nature of the activity in which the respondent was engaged” to the respondent being the subject of the UKLEB’s investigation. However, this analysis should have included other circumstances such as the activity in which ZXC was engaged, namely allegations of corruption in relation to ZXC’s company’s activities in a foreign country.

彭博社称，下级法院在第一阶段的分析中没有采用正确的法律检验标准，即考虑“案件相关的所有情况”，而非对某一情况给予预先设定的权重。彭博社认为下，级法院错误地将“被上诉人所参与活动的性质”这一“Murray因素”局限于被上诉人是作为UKLEB的调查对象。然而，这种分析应当包含其他情形，例如ZXC参与的活动，即与ZXC在外国公司的活动有关的腐败指控。

On this point, the court concluded that the application of a general rule did not mean that the lower courts did not give due consideration to the applicable Murray factors in their multi-factorial analysis, including ZXC’s status as a businessman involved in the affairs of a large public company. In fact, the nature of the activity in which ZXC was engaged was not a factor of particular significance in this case. The court held that lower courts were thus, correct to identify the activity as the criminal investigation in circumstances where the information which the respondent sought to characterise as private was the outcome of that investigation.

在这一点上，法院认为，一般规则的适用并不意味着下级法院在他们的多因素分析中没有适当考虑可适用的Murray因素，包括ZXC作为参与大型上市公司事务的商人的身份。事实上，ZXC所参与活动的性质在本案中并非一个特别重要的因素。本院认为，在被上诉人试图将刑事调查结果定性为私人信息的情况下，下级法院将这些活动定性为刑事调查的做法是正确的。

Based on a consideration of all the circumstances and the weight attached to it, the Supreme Court held that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation.

基于对所有情况的考量，最高法院认为，被上诉人对于该（刑事）调查中的信息存在隐私的合理预期。

With respect to stage 2, the court considered whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that, in a case in which a claim for breach of confidence was not pursued, the fact that Bloomberg published information originating from a confidential law enforcement document rendered the information private and/or undermined Bloomberg’s ability to rely on the public interest in its disclosure. As stated earlier, the court considered it a balancing exercise in order to determine whether Article 8 or 10 of the ECHR should prevail, with neither of the right having the right of precedence over the other. In doing so, the extent to which publication is in the public interest is of central importance, and is determined by looking at the contribution that publication will make to a debate of general interest.

关于第二阶段，法院考量了上诉法院是否错误地认为，当（当事人）并未提起违反保密义务的案件中，彭博社公布源自机密执法文件的信息这一事实，使得该信息成为私密信息并且/或者削弱了彭博社依据公共利益披露该信息的能力。如前所述，本院认为确定《欧洲人权保护公约》第8条和第10条何者优先，是一个权衡的过程，这两项权利都无法凌驾于另一项之上。为此，最重要的是确定（信息）公布在何种程度上是符合公共利益的，这取决于（信息）公布对公众利益讨论的贡献度。

（图片来源于网络）

The judge was right to treat the Letter’s confidentiality as a relevant and important factor at both stage one (in determining whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy) and stage two (by placing reliance on the public interest in the observance of duties of confidence when carrying out the balancing exercise). However, neither the judge nor the Court of Appeal held that the Letter’s confidentiality itself rendered the information private or prevented Bloomberg from relying on the public interest on its disclosure. The court further held that while there is no necessary overlap between the distinct actions for misuse of private information and for breach of confidence, confidentiality and privacy will often overlap, and if information is confidential that is likely to support the reasonableness of an expectation of privacy.

在第一阶段（裁定是否存在对隐私的合理期望）和第二阶段（进行平衡的工作时依靠遵守保密义务责任中的公共利益），法官都正确地将请求书的保密性视为一个重要的相关因素，然而，法官和上诉法院都不认为请求书自身的保密性能使请求书中的信息成为私密信息，或者阻止彭博社依靠公共利益披露信息。法院进一步认为，虽然滥用私人信息和违反保密义务之间没有必然的重叠，但保密性和隐私性往往会重叠，如果信息是保密的，那就有可能支持对隐私的合理期望。