CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 3 avril 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2ED81498 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAF1F3329 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s771F85F9 { width:72.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s74C5C1A0 { width:60.76pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE0BAE19D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s71E464AB { width:162.75pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6FDB9D1F { width:194.97pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s53E9AB06 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }     GRAND CHAMBER           CASE OF VAN DER HEIJDEN v. THE NETHERLANDS   (Application no. 42857/05)                 JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   3 April 2012       This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Van der Heijden v. the Netherlands , The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President ,   Jean-Paul Costa,   Françoise Tulkens,   Josep Casadevall,   Nina Vajić,   Dean Spielmann,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Elisabet Fura,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Egbert Myjer,   Dragoljub Popović,   Giorgio Malinverni,   Luis López Guerra,   Ledi Bianku,   Ann Power-Forde,   Julia Laffranque, judges , and Michael O’Boyle, Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 18 May 2011 and 15 February 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 42857/05) against the Kingdom of the Netherlands lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Netherlands national, Ms Gina Gerdina van der Heijden (“the applicant”), on 30 November 2005. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms T. Spronken and Mr   S.   Weening, both lawyers practising in Maastricht. The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   R.A.A. Böcker of the Netherlands Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, taken both alone and together with Article 14 of the Convention, in that an attempt had been made to compel her to give evidence in criminal proceedings against her long-standing companion with whom she was in a stable family relationship. 4.     The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court), which on 20 January 2009 decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (former Article 29 § 3). 5.     On 7 December 2010 a chamber of the Third Section, composed of Josep Casadevall, President, Elisabet Fura, Corneliu Bîrsan, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Egbert Myjer, Luis López Guerra and Ann Power, judges , and also of Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, neither of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article   30 of the Convention and Rule 72). 6.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. On 3   November 2011 Jean-Paul Costa’s term as judge and President of the Court came to an end. Nicolas Bratza succeeded him as President and took over the presidency of the Grand Chamber in the present case (Rule 9 § 2). Giorgio Malinverni’s term of office as judge expired on 4 October 2011. Jean-Paul Costa and Giorgio Malinverni continued to deal with the present case following the expiry of their terms of office, in accordance with Article   23 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 § 4. 7.     The applicant and the Government each filed a memorial on the admissibility and merits. 8.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 18 May 2011 (Rule 59 § 3).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   R.A.A. Böcker, Ministry for Foreign Affairs,   Agent , Ms   J. Jarigsma , Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Mr   M. Kuijer , Ministry of Security and Justice, Ms   M. Abels , Ministry of Security and Justice,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant Ms   T. Spronken , Advocate, Mr   S. Weening , Advocate,   Counsel .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Böcker, Mr Kuijer and Ms Spronken as well as their answers to questions put by judges. 9.     The President invited the respondent Government to submit certain further information in writing. It was received on 1 June 2011. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 10.     The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in ‘s-Hertogenbosch. 11.     On the night of 9 to 10 May 2004, a man was shot and killed in a café in ‘s-Hertogenbosch by a person believed to be the applicant’s unmarried life partner, Mr A. The applicant was understood to have been in the company of Mr A. at the relevant time. 12.     According to the Government, Mr A. had been convicted of similar offences in 1998 and 2003, and on the latter occasion of attempted manslaughter using a firearm. While serving his sentence for that offence, Mr A. had been given weekend leave; it was during this particular weekend that the above-mentioned shooting took place. 13.     On 25 May 2004, having been summoned as a witness in the criminal investigation that had been opened against Mr A., the applicant appeared but refused to testify before the investigating judge ( rechter ‑ commissaris ). She explained that, although they were not married and had not entered into a registered partnership ( geregistreerd partnerschap ), she and Mr A. had been cohabiting for eighteen years in a relationship out of which two children had been born, both of whom had been recognised by Mr A. The applicant argued that on the basis of this relationship she should be regarded as entitled to the testimonial privilege ( verschoningsrecht ) afforded to suspects’ spouses and registered partners under Article 217, opening sentence and sub-paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Wetboek van Strafvordering ; see paragraph 24 below). Although being of the view that the applicant was not entitled to testimonial privilege, the investigating judge rejected the public prosecutor’s request to issue an order for the applicant’s detention for failure to comply with a judicial order ( gijzeling ), finding that the applicant’s personal interests in remaining at liberty outweighed those of the prosecution. The public prosecutor appealed against this decision to the ‘s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court ( rechtbank ). 14.     On 2 June 2004 the ‘s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court, sitting in chambers ( raadkamer ), quashed the investigating judge’s decision of 25   May 2004 and ordered the applicant’s detention for failure to comply with a judicial order. It considered that it could reasonably be assumed that the applicant was able to convey what had occurred in relation to Mr A. before, during and after the shooting. It noted that, according to the provisions of Article 217, opening sentence and sub-paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in force from 1 January 1998, the (former) spouse or the (former) registered partner of a suspect were competent but not compellable witnesses, that is to say, persons entitled to testimonial privilege. It further held: “It follows from the wording and the legal history of [Article 217, opening sentence and sub-paragraph 3,] that the legislature has quite recently and unambiguously chosen not to include in the scope of [the privilege set out in Article 217, opening sentence and sub-paragraph 3,] any partners other than spouses and registered partners (as well as former spouses and former registered partners). As it does not appear that [the applicant] and the suspect are or have been married or that they are or have been registered partners, the Regional Court is of the view that [the applicant] cannot claim an entitlement to the testimonial privilege laid down in Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is not altered by the fact that [the applicant] and the suspect are engaged in another kind of long ‑ term cohabitation. The Regional Court rejects the argument raised by counsel for [the applicant] that it follows from Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention that the Netherlands legislature cannot limit the group of persons (related to a suspect) entitled to testimonial privilege. An extension of that group must, also in view of the far-reaching consequences thereof, be decided by the legislature and for that reason goes beyond the judicial function ( rechtsvormende taak ) of the courts.” 15.     In its subsequent balancing of the competing interests involved, the Regional Court noted that the facts at issue concerned one of the most serious crimes set out in the Criminal Code ( Wetboek van Strafrecht ) and concluded that the applicant’s personal interests were outweighed by the general interest of the truth being uncovered. It further added that the circumstance that the applicant and Mr A. were cohabiting as if they were in a marriage or a registered partnership could not lead it to balance the interests differently. Rejection of the request to issue a detention order on the basis of that circumstance would entail that the applicant was nevertheless, and in circumvention of Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, granted a right to testimonial privilege, and that would be contrary to the legislature’s choice. 16.     On the same day, 2 June 2004, at around 3.30 p.m., the applicant was taken into detention for failure to comply with a judicial order. As required by Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph   26 below), the applicant was heard on 3 June 2004 by an investigating judge, who rejected a release request by counsel for the applicant and who notified the Regional Court within the statutory time-limit of twenty-four hours after she was taken into detention. 17.     On 4 June 2004 the Regional Court, sitting in chambers, examined whether the applicant’s detention should continue, and in that context it heard the applicant, who persisted in her refusal to give evidence in the criminal investigation against Mr A. The Regional Court agreed with the decision taken in chambers on 2 June 2004 that the applicant was not entitled to testimonial privilege. Concluding that the interests of the investigation in obtaining the applicant’s evidence outweighed the interests invoked on behalf of the applicant, the Regional Court decided that the applicant was to be kept in detention for twelve days, with a possibility of further extension. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal ( gerechtshof ). 18.     On 15 June 2004 the Regional Court, sitting in chambers, examined a request by the prosecution of 14 June 2004 to extend the applicant’s detention. After hearing the public prosecutor, the applicant and her lawyer the Regional Court rejected the request and ordered the applicant’s immediate release. It found that the interest of the truth being uncovered in the criminal proceedings against Mr A. was outweighed by the applicant’s personal interest in being released, also taking into account the fact that the applicant’s detention entailed an interference with her rights under Article 8 of the Convention (“ mede gelet op het feit dat de vrijheidsbeneming van de getuige een inbreuk op artikel 8 van het EVRM tot gevolg heeft ”). 19.     On 24 June 2004, the ‘s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal ( hoger beroep ) and upheld the impugned decision of 4 June 2004. 20.     On 31 May 2005, after noting that the applicant had been released on 15   June 2004, the Supreme Court ( Hoge Raad ) declared inadmissible for lack of interest the applicant’s subsequent appeal on points of law ( cassatie ). The Supreme Court nevertheless saw fit to consider the applicant’s first complaint that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly upheld the ruling of the Regional Court in which it was concluded that she was not entitled to the testimonial privilege of Article 217, opening sentence and sub-paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as her second complaint that to deny her this privilege was contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. 21.     Having noted the wording of Article 217, opening sentence and sub ‑ paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in force since 1 January 1998, the Supreme Court rejected the first complaint. As to the applicant’s grievance based on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, the Supreme Court held: “Testimonial privilege as laid down in Article 217, opening sentence and sub-paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks to protect the ‘family life’ within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention that exists between the spouses and partners referred to in that provision. By granting this privilege to spouses and registered partners but not to other partners – even when such partners, like the applicant and her partner, cohabit in a sustained fashion – the law differentiates between the different forms of cohabitation at issue here. Even assuming that this can be said to constitute a difference in treatment of persons in the same situation, there is an objective and reasonable justification for this difference in treatment, having regard to the fact that the granting of testimonial privilege to spouses and registered partners is an exception to the statutory duty to testify, which exception makes the interest of uncovering the truth yield to the interests of those relationships, with the statutory arrangement delimiting this exception in a clear and workable manner, thus serving legal certainty.” 22.     No further appeal lay against this ruling. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND COMPARATIVE LAW A.     Domestic law and practice 1.     Testimonial privilege 23.     Unlike the suspect, a witness in (preliminary) criminal proceedings is obliged to answer questions put to him or her when he or she is under oath, and any deliberate refusal to do so constitutes a criminal offence under Article 192 of the Criminal Code. However, Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure grants the right not to give evidence to certain relatives of the suspect. 24.     Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: “The following shall be excused the obligation to give evidence or answer certain questions: 1º:     the relatives in the ascending or the descending line of a suspect or co-suspect, whether connected by blood or by marriage; 2º:     the relatives ex transverso [i.e. siblings, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews, etc.] of a suspect or co-suspect, whether connected by blood or by marriage, up to and including the third degree of kinship; 3º:     the spouse or former spouse, or registered partner or former registered partner, of a suspect or co-suspect.” The third sub-paragraph formerly applied only to the spouse and the former spouse of a suspect or co-suspect. It was amended to extend the testimonial privilege to the registered partner (or former registered partner) with effect from 1 January 1998, when the Registered Partnership Act ( Wet geregistreerd partnerschap ) and the Act on the Adaptation of Legislation to the Introduction of Registered Partnership into Book 1 of the Civil Code ( Wet tot aanpassing van wetgeving aan de invoering van het geregistreerd partnerschap in Boek 1 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek ) entered into force. 25.     As can be inferred from the Explanatory Memorandum ( Memorie van Toelichting ) to Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament ( Kamerstukken II ) 1913/14, 286, no. 3, p. 108), and from an advisory opinion of the Advocate General endorsed by the Supreme Court in a judgment of 7 December 1999 (National Jurisprudence Number ZD1719, published in Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (Netherlands Law Reports) 2000, no. 163), the basis for this testimonial privilege lies in the sphere of the protection of family relations. In accepting the right not to give evidence against a relative, spouse or registered partner, the legislature has acknowledged the important social value of those relationships in society and has sought to prevent witnesses from being faced with a moral dilemma by having to make a choice between testifying, and thereby jeopardising their relationship with the suspect, or giving perjured evidence in order to protect that relationship. 2.     Procedure regarding witnesses who refuse to answer questions during the preliminary judicial investigation 26.     Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: “1.     If, when questioned, the witness refuses without any lawful reason to answer the questions put to him or to make the required statement or take the required oath or affirmation, the investigating judge shall, if this is urgently required in the interest of the investigation, either proprio motu or if so requested by the public prosecutor or by the defence, order that the witness shall be detained for failure to comply with a judicial order until the Regional Court has given a decision in the matter. 2.     The investigating judge shall notify the Regional Court within twenty-four hours after the detention has commenced, unless the witness is released from detention before then. The Regional Court shall, within forty-eight hours [from the notification], order that the witness be kept in detention or released.” Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: “1.     The Regional Court’s order for the witness to remain in detention shall be valid for no longer than twelve days. 2.     However, as long as the preliminary judicial investigation ( gerechtelijk vooronderzoek ) remains pending, the Regional Court may, on the basis of the findings of the investigating judge or at the request of the public prosecutor, after having again questioned the witness, extend the validity of the order again and again ( telkens ) for twelve days each time.” 27.     Article 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: “1.     The investigating judge shall order the witness released from detention as soon as he has fulfilled his obligation or his evidence is no longer needed. 2.     The Regional Court may at any time order the witness released from detention, whether on the basis of the findings of the investigating judge, proprio motu or if so requested by the public prosecutor or by the defence. The witness shall be heard or summoned beforehand. 3.     If the witness’s request to be released from detention is refused, he may appeal within three days of the official notification of the decision, and in the event that his appeal is dismissed, he may within the same time-limit lodge an appeal on points of law. ... 4.     In any event, the public prosecutor shall order that the witness be released as soon as the preliminary judicial investigation has been closed or discontinued.” 3.     Registered partnerships 28.     A partnership is registered by means of a registration document drawn up by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages ( ambtenaar van de burgerlijke stand ) (Article 1:80a § 2 of the Civil Code); the formal requirements are similar to those of a marriage. It can be dissolved by mutual consent, by the registration of a statement to that effect signed by both parties and co-signed by an advocate or a notary, or by a court order at the request of one of the parties (Article 1:80c of the Civil Code). 29.     The provisions of the Civil Code setting out the legal consequences of marriage apply by analogy to a registered partnership, with the exception of certain rules governing the establishment of legal family ties ( familierechtelijke betrekkingen ) with descendants (Article 1:80b of the Civil Code). 4.     Information supplied by the Government at the Court’s request 30.     On 1 June 2011, in response to a request made during the Court’s hearing (see paragraph 9 above), the Government supplied the following information: “In 1997/1998 article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) was amended to the extent that the right to be exempted from testifying would also apply to a witness who had entered into a registered partnership with the defendant. This amendment in itself did not lead to any debate on the question whether other forms of relationships should be entitled to the same exemption. However, this amendment – among many others – was a consequence of the introduction of registered partnership, which in turn was preceded by a full survey (concluded in 1985, [Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament, 15401, no. 5]) of all legislation that made a distinction between married and unmarried couples. With regard to article 217 CCP the survey mentioned that an amendment should be considered to the effect that the article would include a life partner (p. 16). Following this survey the Kortmann committee [a committee tasked with reviewing legislative projects, named after its chairman, Professor S.C.J.J. Kortmann] presented its report ‘Partnerships’ ( Leefvormen , 20 December 1991) to the Cabinet. The committee was of the opinion that the best way to remove all existing distinctions would be to introduce two new possibilities of registering partnerships in addition to marriage. Together these three forms of registration could be used as categories in most legal provisions that attached legal consequences to different types of partnerships. Following further discussion in parliament ([Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament, 15401, nos. 9, 10 and 11]) the Government decided to introduce only one new form of registration, which then became known as registered partnership. In doing so, the Government accepted that in several instances, specific provisions might be required to accommodate situations of family life not covered by the accepted categories. However, in the context of article 217 CCP this was not considered necessary.” B.     Testimonial privilege in other Council of Europe Member States 31.     All Council of Europe Member States have addressed in their legislation the question whether in criminal proceedings the spouse of the defendant can be compelled to give evidence. The following is a brief and necessarily condensed survey of the position in the various domestic legal orders. It is based on information available to the Court at the time of its hearing (see paragraph 8 above). 32.     In no Council of Europe member State, with the exception of France and Luxembourg, are spouses obliged to give evidence in criminal proceedings in which the other spouse is a suspect. In a few cases, namely Belgium, Malta and Norway, exclusion of the evidence of the suspect’s spouse is automatic; in general, however, the spouse may opt to give evidence or claim a privilege or an exemption when called as a witness. 33.     The possibility formally to register a partnership exists in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain (some of the autonomous communities), Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Some of these States allow such registration only if the parties are of the same sex (including Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Slovenia and Sweden); the other member States concerned provide registration of a partnership as an alternative to marriage when the parties are a man and a woman. 34.     Of the twenty member States that allow the registration of partnerships, thirteen are prepared to exempt the suspect’s registered partner from giving evidence: these are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Iceland and the Netherlands, whose legislation explicitly so provides, and Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, whose laws assimilate registered partnership to marriage in this aspect as in others. Greece and Ireland do not extend this privilege to registered partners; France and Luxembourg grant no testimonial privilege at all. 35.     A minority of member States – namely Austria, Andorra, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey and Ukraine – exempt the person engaged to be married to the suspect from the duty to give evidence. However, apart from Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Turkey, these member States qualify this exemption by requiring evidence of the existence of a bond similar to marriage, such as stable cohabitation or a child born of the relationship. 36.     Cohabitees who are not married, engaged to be married or in a registered partnership with the suspect appear to be dispensed from giving evidence unconditionally only in Albania, Andorra, Lithuania and Moldova. By contrast, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland require proof of the marriage-like nature of the relationship, usually in the form of children born of it, demonstrable financial arrangements or length of cohabitation. It would appear that the other Council of Europe member States do not permit a person merely cohabiting with the suspect to withhold his or her evidence. THE LAW I.     ADMISSIBILITY 37.     The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 38.     The applicant complained that she had been the victim of a lack of respect for her “family life” in that an attempt had been made to compel her to give evidence against Mr A, with whom she was in a stable family relationship. She relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for ... family life ... 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 39.     The Government denied that there had been any violation of that Article. A.     Argument before the Court 1.     The Government 40.     The Government did not deny that the applicant and Mr A. enjoyed “family life” as that term is understood within the autonomous meaning given to it in the Court’s case-law. However, they dismissed any suggestion that the applicant’s evidence should have been dispensed with, instead expressing the view that giving evidence in court was a “civic duty” which did not, as such, interfere with “family life”. 41.     In the alternative, they argued that the interference, if any, had been “necessary in a democratic society” in the interests of “public safety” and “the prevention of crime”. The duty to give evidence was essential to the proper administration of criminal justice, given that it was in the interest of society that criminal offences be punished. It followed that the power to compel witnesses to give evidence was indispensable to the prosecution of crime. 42.     In the instant case, the importance of bringing to justice the individual responsible for causing another person’s death clearly outweighed any potential consequences for the applicant’s family life. 43.     Further pointing to the need to maintain legal certainty and the effectiveness of criminal proceedings, the Government argued that extending testimonial privilege to forms of de facto family life other than marriage or registered partnership would give rise to debate on matters such as the nature and closeness of the relationship that were not properly within the province of the criminal courts; moreover, courts would in any case retain the freedom to dismiss a witness as not indispensible or unlikely to be reliable in view of the relationship in question. 44.     As to proportionality, the Government pointed to the possibility of registering a partnership as an alternative to marriage, this being available to the applicant with a minimum of cost and formality. It would have made her relationship with Mr A. official and verifiable, and would have secured to her the privilege now claimed before the Court. 45.     Finally, the Government submitted the results of a survey covering fifteen Council of Europe member States from which it appeared that the system in the Netherlands was in no way unusual. 2.     The applicant 46.     The applicant stressed the length and stability of her family relationship with Mr A. It had lasted eighteen years prior to the events complained of; during that time cohabitation had been constant, interrupted only by a prison sentence (related to an earlier crime) which Mr A. had begun to serve in 1998. Moreover, she and Mr A. had had two children together (born in 1990 and 2002), both of whom Mr A. had recognised as his; they bore his family name. The only difference between her family situation and one formalised by marriage or registered partnership was thus the absence of any formal act. 47.     The applicant argued that her family was as worthy of protection as any marriage-based or registered union in so far as the rationale of testimonial privilege in the sphere of the protection of family relations was concerned. It was merely for the convenience of the courts that they were relieved of the need to assess whether a de facto family attracting the protection of Article 8 existed. In her case, there could scarcely be any doubt on the matter. 48.     Cohabitation and marriage were moreover treated equally in other fields of Netherlands law, such as taxation, alimony, tenancy and social security; this caused no difficulties in normal life. Other Convention States Parties in fact afforded testimonial privilege to cohabitees and to persons engaged to be married to a suspect. 49.     At all events, in the applicant’s submission her evidence had not been needed to determine the truth in Mr A.’s case: ample other evidence had been available. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 50.     The Court reiterates that the notion of “ family life” in Article 8 is not confined solely to families based on marriage and may encompass other de facto relationships (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium , 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31; Keegan v. Ireland , 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands , 27 October 1994, §   30, Series A no. 297 ‑ C; X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom , 22 April 1997, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II; and Emonet and Others v. Switzerland , no. 39051/03, § 34, ECHR 2007 ‑ XIV). When deciding whether a relationship can be said to amount to “ family life”, a number of factors may be relevant, including whether the couple live together, the length of their relationship and whether they have demonstrated their commitment to each other by having children together or by any other means. 51.     The applicant’s relationship with Mr A. had lasted eighteen years by the time of the events complained of; they had lived together for much of this time, at least until 1998 when Mr A. went to prison on grounds unrelated to the present case. Two children were born to them, both recognised by Mr A. The Court therefore finds that “family life” existed between the applicant and Mr A. This is not disputed by the respondent Government. 52.     The Court finds that, even though the obligation imposed on the applicant to give evidence was a "civic duty" as submitted by the Government, the attempt to compel the applicant to give evidence in the criminal proceedings against Mr A. constitutes an “interference” with her right to respect for her family life. 2.     “In accordance with the law” 53.     All agree that the interference was “in accordance with the law” in that it was provided for by Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3.     “Legitimate aim” 54.     It is not contested that the interference pursued a “legitimate aim” – namely the protection of society by inter alia “the prevention of crime”, that concept encompassing the securing of evidence for the purpose of detecting and prosecuting crime (see Société Colas Est and Others v. France , no.   37971/97, § 44, ECHR 2002 ‑ III; see also K. v. Austria , no. 16002/90, Commission’s report of 13 October 1992, § 47, Series A no. 255-B). 4.     “Necessary in a democratic society” 55.     At the outset, the Court reiterates the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention system and recognises that the national authorities have direct democratic legitimation in so far as the protection of human rights is concerned (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   36022/97, § 97, ECHR 2003 ‑ VIII). Moreover, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, they are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions (see, mutatis mutandis , Handyside v. the United Kingdom , 7   December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24; Müller and Others v. Switzerland , 24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133; Wingrove v. the United Kingdom , 25   November 1996, § 58, Reports 1996 ‑ V; Fretté v. France , no. 36515/97, §   41, ECHR 2002 ‑ I; and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 223, ECHR 2010-...). 56.     It is therefore primarily the responsibility of the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to where the fair balance lies in assessing the need for an interference in the public interest with individuals’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention. Accordingly, in adopting legislation intended to strike a balance between competing interests, States must in principle be allowed to determine the means which they consider to be best suited to achieving the aim of reconciling those interests (see Odièvre v.   France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 49, ECHR 2003 ‑ III). 57.     While it is for the national legislature to make the initial assessment, the final evaluation as to whether an interference in a particular case is “necessary”, as that term is to be understood within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, remains subject to review by the Court (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, 4   December 2008). 58.     A certain margin of appreciation is, in principle, afforded to domestic authorities as regards that assessment; its breadth depends on a number of factors dictated by the particular case (see, among other authorities, Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 77, ECHR 2007 ‑ XIII, and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], cited above, § 232). 59.     The margin will tend to be relatively narrow where the right at stake is crucial to the individual’s effective enjoyment of intimate or key rights (see S. and Marper , cited above, § 102).Where a particularly important facet of an individual’s existence or identity is at stake, the margin allowed to the State will be restricted (see, among other authorities, Dickson , cited above, § 78; Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 77, ECHR 2007 ‑ IV; S. and Marper , cited above, ibid. ; and A, B and C v. Ireland , cited above, ibid. ). 60.     Where there is no consensus within the member States of the Council of Europe, either as to the relative importance of the interest at stake or as to the best means of protecting it, particularly where the case raises sensitive moral or ethical issues, the margin will be wider (see, among other authorities, Evans , cited above, § 77; Dickson , cited above, § 78; and A, B and C v. Ireland , cited above, ibid. ). 61.     Turning to the case in hand, the Court first observes the wide variety of practices among Council of Europe member States relating to the compellability of witnesses (see paragraphs 31-36 above). Although the lack of common ground is not in itself decisive, it militates in favour of a wide margin of appreciation in this matter. 62.     The Court recognises that there are, in fact, two competing public interests at issue in this case. The first is the public interest in the prosecution of serious crime. The second is the public interest in the protection of family life from State interference. Both interests are important, having regard to the common good. In balancing those competing interests the respondent Government have considered that the public interest in the protection of family life weighed heavier in the scales than the public interest in criminal prosecution, but they have set limits on the scope of the “family life” that attracts statutory protection. They have done so by requiring formal recognition of the “protected” family relationship before permitting the “testimonial privilege” exception to arise. This formal recognition can be obtained either through marriage or by way of registration of the relationship. The public interest in the prosecution of crime involves, of necessity, putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions (see, among other authorities, Osman v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports 1998 ‑ VIII; more recently, Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia , no. 46598/06, § 49, ECHR 2009 ‑ ... (extracts); Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, § 128, ECHR 2009 ‑ ...; and Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia , no. 25965/04, § 218, ECHR 2010 ‑ ... (extracts)). It should be added that the duty of High Contracting Parties to deter or punish crime extends to other Convention provisions involving the active protection of individuals’ rights against harm caused by others: in fact, the Court first formulated such a duty in finding a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see X and Y v. the Netherlands , 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91). 63.     The corollary of the duty incumbent on the High Contracting Party is that for individuals it is a “normal civic duty” to give evidence in criminal proceedings. Indeed, the Court has so stated in Voskuil v. the Netherlands (no. 64752/01, § 86, 22 November 2007). 64.     Exceptions to this civic duty have been recognised in the case-law of the Court. Thus, the suspect himself or herself enjoys the privilege against self-incrimination. This privilege, recognised in principle by the Commission under Article 10 of the Convention (see the Commission’s report in the case of K. v. Austria , cited above, § 45), has been identified by the Court as lying at the heart of the rights which the defence enjoys under Article 6 (see John Murray v. the United Kingdom , 8 February 1996, § 45, Reports 1996 ‑ I; and Saunders v. the United Kingdom , 17 December 1996, §   68, Reports 1996 ‑ VI; more recently, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no.   54810/00, § 97, ECHR 2006 ‑ IX, and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no.   22978/05, § 168, ECHR 2010 ‑ ...). Journalists, too, may derive from Article 10 of the Convention the right to decline to give evidence in certain circumstances in so far as they have a legitimate need to conceal the identity of their informants (see Goodwin v. the United Kingdom , 27 March 1996, §   45, Reports 1996 ‑ II; see also the case-law overview given in Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, §§ 59-63, 14   September 2004). 65.     The central question which the Court must consider is whether by prescribing in its legislation a limited category, from which the applicant was excluded, of persons who were exempted from the otherwise standard obligation to give evidence in a criminal trial, the respondent Party violated the applicant’s rights under Article 8. In this regard, the Court notes that the Netherlands is among the many Council of Europe member States that have elected to create a statutory testimonial privilege for certain categories of witnesses. This has been done in a “clear and workable manner”, as the Supreme Court indicated (see paragraph 21 above), by delimiting specific categories of persons including, among others, the spouse and any former spouse of the suspect and any person who is, or has been, in a registered partnership with the suspect. Such witnesses are relieved of the moral dilemma of having to choose between giving truthful evidence and thereby, possibly, jeopardising their relationship with the suspect or giving unreliable evidence, or even perjuring themselves, in order to protect that relationship. 66.     It is the position of the applicant that she was entitled to the same privilege in relation to Mr A. by virtue of her family life with him, which was to all intents and purposes identical to marriage or a registered partnership except that it had never been formalised. 67.     The Court would point out that any right not to give evidence constitutes an exemption from a normal civic duty acknowledged to be in the public interest. It must accordingly be accepted that such a right, where recognised, may be made subject to conditions and formalities, with the categories of its beneficiaries clearly set out. 68.     In so far as the domestic law of the respondent Party grants an exemption from the duty to give evidence based on family life, it is limited to close relatives, spouses, former spouses, registered partners and former registered partners of suspects (Article 21