CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 septembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC547D3F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s19A99A56 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s92211FAE { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s33F76D61 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s444FCFCE { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3D60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s4D4F15A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sACA0C168 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 644 10.09.2010 Press release issued by the Registrar FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT 14 September 2010     The European Court of Human Rights will deliver its Grand Chamber [1] judgment in the case of Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands (application no. 38224/03) at a public hearing on Tuesday 14   September 2010 at 11 a.m. - local time - in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg.   The press releases and the text of the judgment will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site ( www.echr.coe.int ).     Principal facts   The applicant, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. , is a Dutch magazine publishing company, based in Hoofddorp (the Netherlands). The case concerned photographs, to be used for an article on illegal car racing, which the company was compelled to hand over to police investigating another crime, despite the journalists strong objections to being forced to divulge material capable of identifying confidential sources.   On 12 January 2002 an illegal car race was held in an industrial area on the outskirts of the town of Hoorn. The company maintained that journalists working for its magazine Autoweek – who were doing a feature article on illegal car racing - were given permission to cover the event, provided that they did not identify those involved. The photographs were to be touched up to prevent the identification of the cars or participants and then stored on a CD ‑ ROM. In the event, the race was stopped by the police, who were also present. No   arrests were made.   The police later suspected that one of the cars (an Audi RS4) used in the race had also been used as the getaway car in a ram raid on 1 February 2001, during which a cash point machine was stolen and a bystander threatened with a firearm.   Later that day the police tried to order the applicant company to surrender the CD-ROM containing the photographs for seizure. The applicant company refused, in order to protect the confidentiality of their journalistic sources. The Amsterdam public prosecutor then issued the company with a summons under Article 96a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 96a) to surrender the photographs and any related material concerning the race. The magazine’s editor-in-chief refused, again invoking the journalists’ undertaking not to identify the participants. At 6.01 p.m. on 1 February 2002, he was arrested and brought before the Amsterdam public prosecutor. He was released at 10 p.m.   Sanoma Uitgevers B.V.’s lawyer obtained the agreement of the public prosecutors to seek the intervention of the duty investigating judge of Amsterdam Regional Court, who, although recognising from the outset that he had no legal competence in the matter, took the view that the needs of the criminal investigation outweighed the applicant company’s journalistic privilege.   On 2 February 2002 at 1.20 a.m., the applicant company, under protest, surrendered the CD-ROM, which was then officially seized.   On 15 April 2002 the company lodged a complaint before the Regional Court, seeking the lifting of the seizure and restitution of the CD ROM, an order to the police and prosecution to destroy copies of the data recorded on the CD-ROM and an injunction preventing the police and prosecution from using information obtained through the CD-ROM. On 19   September   2002 the court granted only the request to lift the seizure and to return the CD-ROM.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 December 2003.   Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complained that they had been compelled to disclose information to the police that would have revealed their journalists’ sources.   In its Chamber judgment in the case, notified on 31 March 2009, the Court found that, although in principle a compulsory handover of journalistic material might have a chilling effect on the exercise of journalistic freedom of expression, the Netherlands authorities were not prevented from balancing the conflicting interests involved in the case. In particular, the information contained on the CD-ROM had been relevant and capable of identifying the perpetrators of other crimes investigated by the police and the authorities had only used that information for those purposes. The Chamber therefore held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 10.   On 14 September 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant company’s request.   ***   The press release is produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (tel: +33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   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] Grand Chamber judgements are final.