ECHR Verdict Against Right of Non-Disclosure of Dutch Magazine
A discussion of the judgment of the European Court of Human
Rights in the matter Sanoma vs. the Netherlands dated 31 March
2009
Street Races in Hoorn
On 31 March 2009 the European Court of Human Rights rendered a
judgment in the case of Sanoma
versus the Netherlands. The Sanoma weekly Autoweek had
photographs of a street race of January 2002 in Hoorn in its
possession. Before the journalists were allowed to take
photographs, they had to guarantee that they would not disclose
the participants' identity. The police claimed the
photographs in order to track down the suspects. The Dutch
government was of the view that it was a race in public, so that
the
people who were in the photographs could not count on these
photographs not being disclosed. And as a result, the journalistic
right of non-disclosure would not apply.
Journalistic Right of Non-Disclosure also Applicable to
Photographs Made in Public?
The Court disagreed. An illegal street race is precisely
organized at a secret spot, out of the public's sight. The
Court once again emphasized the vital importance of the press as a
public watchdog, and the necessity not to disclose journalistic
sources. The Court was also of the view that the requesting of the
CD Rom by the police might have a chilling effect on the freedom of
press. All this may be true, but the Court still ruled that in this
case the police rightfully requested the CD Rom.
Court:
The Importance of Tracking Down Outweighs Free Access to
Information
Although initially the police only wanted to say that it was a
matter of 'life or death', it appeared in Court that the
police hoped to find suspects of a number of ram raids on the
pictures. Apparently a number of inhabitants of Hoorn had tried to
empty ATM machines with a shovel loader (by driving the shovel
loader through the wall of the building concerned). During a ram
raid on 1 February 2002 a weapon had also been used. According to
the Court this was sufficient to have the importance of the
tracking down outweigh the freedom of expression and the free
access to information. Actually, it was touch and go; three out of
the seven judges disagreed with the judgment. Their dissenting
opinion is to be found at the bottom of the
judgment.
Journalists Used as Investigation
Tools?
Though it is understandable that the police does everything to
catch these ram raiders, the question is whether hunting down
criminals is not the police's task and should not be left to
journalists. Journalists who had to promise before taking the
photographs that they would not disclose them. This verdict may
result in a lessened credibility for journalists when they commit
to keeping their sources secret.