CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 13 mars 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s42A0AEC7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     133   13.3.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASE OF ROEMEN AND SCHMIT v. LUXEMBOURG APPLICATION PARTIALLY ADMISSIBLE   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) has declared partially admissible the application in the case of Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg (no. 51772/99).   The Court yesterday declared admissible the first applicant’s complaint under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) concerning protection of a journalist’s sources and the second applicant’s complaint under Article 8 (right to respect for one’s home) concerning a search carried out at her office. It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   The admissibility decision will be available on the Court’s Internet site ( www.echr.coe.int ) at a later date.   Principal facts   The applicants are Robert Roemen, a journalist in Luxembourg, and Anne-Marie Schmit, his lawyer in the domestic proceedings in Luxembourg. They are Luxembourg nationals, were born in 1945 and 1963 respectively and live in Luxembourg.   On 21 July 1998 the first applicant published in the daily newspaper “ Lëtzëbuerger Journal ” an article entitled “Minister W. convicted of tax evasion” ( Minister W. der Steuerhinterziehung überführt ). The article asserted that the minister had broken the seventh, eighth and ninth commandment by evading VAT payments. Mr Roemen went on to say that it might have been expected that a politician on the right would take the principles so carefully established by Moses more seriously. He then stated that the minister had been ordered to pay a tax fine of LUF 100,000. In conclusion, he expressed the view that such an attitude was all the more shameful because, as a leading citizen, Minister W. should have set a good example.   The applicants produced documents showing that in a decision of 16 July 1998 the Director of the Land Registry and State Property Office had imposed the fine in question on Minister   W. under section 77(2) of the VAT Act (the Law of 12 February 1979).   On 21 August 1998, following a complaint lodged by Minister W., the public prosecutor’s office asked the investigating judge to conduct a judicial investigation into the allegations, namely that the first applicant had committed the offence of making use of information obtained through a breach of professional confidence and that a person or persons unknown had committed a breach of professional confidence. The request specified that the investigation and inquiry to be conducted should identify the civil servant or servants in the Land Registry and State Property Office who had handled the file and had had access to the documents. On the instructions of the investigating judge, searches were carried out at the first applicant’s home and place of work on 19 October 1998 and at his lawyer’s office on 11 January 1999. Both applicants lodged applications to set aside the investigating judge’s instructions and the investigative measures undertaken on the strength of them, particularly the searches. These applications were refused.   On 13 November 2001 the first applicant was summoned for questioning on 30 November 2001 in connection with the charges against him.   According to Mr Roemen, the investigating judge charged him with “making use of information obtained through a breach of professional confidence” on 30 November 2001.     ***     Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.