CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 novembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 102 November 2007 Voskuil v. the Netherlands - 64752/01 Judgment 22.11.2007 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Detention of a journalist with a view to compelling him to disclose his source of information: violation   Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Failure to notify a detention order within the time-limit prescribed by law: violation   Facts : In 2000 the applicant, a journalist, published an article which contained quotations of an unnamed policeman compromising the methods used in a criminal investigation against certain persons. The court of appeal ordered the applicant to reveal the identity of his source in the interests of the accused and the integrity of the police and judicial authorities. When the applicant failed to comply, the court ordered his immediate detention. More than two weeks later, in the light of the results of an internal police investigation, the court considered the applicant's statements implausible and lifted the order for his detention. The criminal proceedings against the accused were brought to a conclusion. Law : Article 10 – The interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression was based in domestic law and pursued the “legitimate aim” of preventing crime. However, the protection of a journalist's sources was one of the basic conditions for freedom of the press, as reflected in various international instruments including the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (2000) 7. Without such protection, sources might be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest and, as a result, the vital public-watchdog role of the press might be undermined. The order to disclose a source could be justified only by an overriding requirement in the public interest. The reasons for the applicant being required to identify his source were, firstly, to ensure a fair trial for the individuals accused of arms trafficking and, secondly, to protect the integrity of the police. The Court found the first reason irrelevant. Whatever the potential significance to the criminal proceedings of the information which the court of appeal had attempted to extract from the applicant, it had not been prevented from considering the merits of the charges against the three accused. Indeed, the applicant's alleged information had been substituted with evidence from other witnesses. As for the second reason, the Court was not in a position to establish whether or not there was any truth in the allegations published by the applicant. It took the view that, in any case, in a democratic state governed by the rule of law, the use of improper methods by a public authority was precisely the kind of issue about which the public had the right to be informed. The Court was struck by the lengths to which the authorities had been prepared to go to learn the identity of the source. Such far-reaching measures could but discourage those who had true and accurate information relating to wrongdoing from coming forward in the future and sharing their knowledge with the press. In conclusion, the Government's interest in knowing the identity of the applicant's source had not been sufficient to override the applicant's interest in concealing it. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 1 – Domestic law provided for notification in writing of the detention order within twenty-four hours. The applicant was not notified of the order until some three days later. Therefore, his detention had not complied with “a procedure prescribed by law”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes