CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 novembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   738 30.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT VERAART v. THE NETHERLANDS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Veraart v. the Netherlands (application no. 10807/04).   The Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,583   euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Christiaan Joseph Willibrord Veraart, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1944. He is a lawyer.   On 19 June 2000 NCRV Television broadcast a documentary called “Secret Mothers” ( Verborgen moeders ), concerning a woman, Ms A.K., who claimed to have been the victim of incest committed by her grandfather, her father and two of her brothers. She alleged that she had fallen pregnant five times as a result, that one pregnancy had been terminated and that, of the babies born from the other four, three had been ritually murdered and one had been sold. Her statements were said to be based on repressed memories which she had been able to recover with the aid of a therapist, Mr Kieft, who had been treating her for six years.   The K. family, who denied the truth of Ms A.K.'s allegations, sought Mr Veraart’s assistance and NCRV was subsequently charged with criminal libel.   On 14 June 2002 the public prosecution service published a press release in which it was stated that NCRV had admitted having libelled the K. family and had settled out of court.   On 28 November 2001 AVRO Radio broadcast a programme featuring an interview with the applicant about the case in which the applicant said that therapists like Mr Kieft were “dangerous”. The applicant went on:   “Someone like that shouldn't, should not be allowed to be a therapist surely? That man, he lives in North Holland province, he should, er, grow cabbages for the market ... He should go and grow cabbages out there, but he should absolutely not be working with with with patients, or with people who who are in emergency situations. I find this very worrying. I consider this very unprofessional. It's possible of course [that] these people are magi ( magiërs ), that has nothing to do with therapists, nothing to do with doctors. They take people back in regression therapy. Where was that man educated? Where did that man study? I have no idea, and what does he presume to be? That man likens himself to God. There is no medical practitioner, surely, who could say that?”   The programme also included an interview with Mr Kieft, who stated that he was neither a hypnotist nor a regression therapist. He believed, however, that the emotions aroused by relaxation exercises and acupressure reflected true events and he was certain that the memories which he had helped Ms A.K. recover were the truth.   On 9 December 2001 Mr Kieft lodged a complaint against the applicant with the dean of the local Bar Association. The dean gave a provisional opinion on 22 March 2002. It mentioned that Mr Kieft was asked, on 24 January 2002, to state his medical and scientific qualifications but declined to do so. Ultimately, on appeal to the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal ( Hof van Discipline ), Mr Kieft’s complaint was found to be well-founded on 3 October 2003. Since the applicant had a clean record, he was given a warning ( enkele waarschuwing ).   Mr Kieft’s qualifications were specified for the first time at a hearing held by the Tribunal on 28 April 2003, at which it was stated, among other things, that Mr Kieft had been trained at the International Institute of Unitive Psychotherapy, after which he had taken some practical and theoretical courses and a two-year course on multi-method relationship therapy.   On 16 March 2005 Mr Kieft informed the European Court of Human Rights that he had also brought civil proceedings concerning the case which had been adjourned pending the European Court of Human Rights’ decision. However he did not wish to intervene in the proceedings before the Court as a third party (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention).   The K. family brought an action for damages against Mr Kieft on 13   October 2005, based on what the applicant describes as the escalation of Ms A.K.'s problems and the statements made by Mr Kieft as to the truth of her alleged recollections.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 March 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , Pieter van Dijk (Netherlands) , ad hoc judge , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained that the disciplinary sanction imposed on him by the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal constituted a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court observed that it was not in dispute that there had been an interference (in the form of a penalty) with the applicant's freedom of expression, that that interference was prescribed by law and that it was intended to protect the reputation or rights of others.   As to whether it could be considered necessary in a democratic society, the Court first reiterated that, although lawyers were entitled to freedom of expression, the special nature of their profession required that they conduct themselves in a discreet, honest and dignified manner in public.   The Court observed that, in the applicant’s case, Ms A.K. had publicly accused her family of crimes of a particularly loathsome nature. The K. family secured the assistance of the applicant to seek redress for the injury caused to them and to defend their reputation. It could not be doubted that the applicant was entitled to make public statements in his clients' interest, even outside the courtroom, subject to the proviso that he was acting in good faith and in accordance with the ethics of the legal profession.   In the applicant’s case, as regards the factual basis of his statement, it had to be accepted that there was a link between Ms A.K.'s accusations and the therapy which she had received from Mr Kieft over a period of several years. In fact Mr Kieft never denied that. What was more, in the same radio programme in which the applicant had made his impugned statement, Mr Kieft had stated unambiguously, not only that the therapy he had provided had helped Ms A.K. to recover her memories, but also that it had enabled her to accept them as the truth.   As far as the Court was aware, there had been no confirmation of the accuracy of Ms A.K.'s statements from any source unrelated to Ms A.K. herself and Mr Kieft.   In those circumstances, and especially given the extremely serious accusations levelled against the K. family, there was nothing unreasonable in expecting Mr Kieft at the very least to state his qualifications. Indeed it was difficult to see how else the existence or absence of any factual basis for the opinion expressed by the applicant could be established. Yet, Mr Kieft was allowed to withhold all information about his qualifications and training until the very last stage of the disciplinary proceedings. What was more, it was not apparent from the resulting decision that the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal had sought to determine either whether or not Mr Kieft had the professional competence to establish the truth of Ms A.K.'s accusations by psychotherapy alone or whether the applicant had been in a position to substantiate and justify his statements himself.   The Court considered that an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts required an investigation into at least that important aspect of the case. Only then would it have been possible to give an informed decision as to whether the applicant had overstepped the limits of acceptable professional behaviour. As it was, the decision given by the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal was based on an inadequate assessment of the facts and the reasons given therefore lacked relevance.   The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10.     Judges Zagrebelsky and Berro-Lefèvre expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.