# CE2004078EN.01026401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/264 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/264

---

(2004/C 78 E/0264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3335/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Editorial offices of the daily newspaper ‘Il Giornale’ searched

Subject:

On 17 October last the head office of the daily newspaper ‘Il Giornale’ in Rome was subjected to a seven-hour search ordered by the Public Prosecutor of Perugia in the context of investigations into the ‘Telekom Serbia’ case.

The newspaper had been conducting a detailed inquiry into the growing scandal involving the former State-owned company Telecom Italia, which purchased the Serbian company in 1997, and a number of politicians in the government at the time. The inquiry had recently revealed new aspects of the case and evidence submitted by some individuals acquainted with the facts had been published.

The editor Maurizio Belpietro and the correspondent Gianmarco Chiocci were notified of charges of defamation and violation of confidentiality by the Public Prosecutor, and Chiocci's computer was sealed.

The episode is particularly unpleasant because it constitutes a serious violation of press freedom and freedom of information, as well as the professional freedom of those subjected to the search. These principles are recognised as fundamental by the national constitutions of all democratic countries, as well as by the Council of Europe which, in Recommendation R(200)7 of 8 March 2000, stressed that the interception of communications, surveillance and judicial search and seizure are unacceptable if their purpose is to circumvent the right of journalists to information. Article 11 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights considers this right to be inalienable and the European Court of Human Rights has on several occasions expressed views on the subject. Recently (judgment of 15 July 2003 in Case No 33400/96, Ernst v. Belgium) it established, in a similar case, that the investigators' aim of identifying those responsible for leaks of information from legal departments did not justify searching the workplace of journalists in order to discover their sources of information.

In the light of all these considerations can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it considers that the episode mentioned constitutes a serious violation of the principles and provisions mentioned; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it considers that the episode mentioned constitutes a serious violation of the principles and provisions mentioned;

| 2. | how the European Union might act to sanction such restrictions on freedom of the press; |
| --- | --- |

2.

how the European Union might act to sanction such restrictions on freedom of the press;

| 3. | whether it intends to make a statement on the issue? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it intends to make a statement on the issue?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

(16 December 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3201/03 by Mr Tajani (1)

1

---

(1)  See page 240.

1

---