Verschoningsrecht journalist
Whatever the consequences might have been for the source, the Court is struck by the lengths to which the Netherlands authorities were prepared to go to learn his or her identity. (...). The Court finds that the facts to be considered tip the balance of competing interests in favour of the interest of democratic society in securing a free press. On the facts of the present case, the Court does not find that the Government's interest in knowing the identity of the applicant's source was sufficient to override the applicant's interest in concealing it.
The Court is not in a position to establish whether or not there was any truth in the allegations published by the applicant. It notes that both the Advocate General and the Court of Appeal took them seriously enough for the applicant's detention to be ordered for more than two weeks, and that similar allegations were aired in print media other than the newspaper Spits, but that the Court of Appeal eventually dismissed the report published by the applicant as implausible. On the one hand the Court understands the Government's concern about the possible effects of any suggestion of foul play on the part of public authority, especially if it is false. On the other hand, however, it takes the view that in a democratic state governed by the rule of law the use of improper methods by public authority is precisely the kind of issue about which the public have the right to be informed (...). It is in this light that the Court views the Government's admission (apparently contradicting the Advocate General – see paragraph 10 above) that the applicant's source faced “grave repercussions” if exposed. Whatever the consequences might have been for the source, the Court is struck by the lengths to which the Netherlands authorities were prepared to go to learn his or her identity. Such farreaching measures cannot but discourage persons who have true and accurate information relating to wrongdoing of the kind here at issue from coming forward and sharing their knowledge with the press in future cases. The Court finds that the facts to be considered tip the balance of competing interests in favour of the interest of democratic society in securing a free press. On the facts of the present case, the Court does not find that the Government's interest in knowing the identity of the applicant's source was sufficient to override the applicant's interest in concealing it (...). This finding dispenses the Court from considering the Government's remaining argument, namely that the length of the applicant's detention was not disproportionate when viewed in relation to the interests involved. In conclusion, there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
IEPT20071122, EHRM, Voskuil v Nederland
