CASE OF TELEGRAAF MEDIA NEDERLAND LANDELIJKE MEDIA B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Hearing: Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 39315/06) (Chamber hearing, 2012-06-19 00:00:00)
Application no.: 39315/06
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2012-11-22 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1122JUD003931506
Respondent state: NLD
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;10;10-1;10-2;35
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
Represented by: LE POLE R.S. ; DE KEMP M.A.
Issue: Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe’s Recommendation No. R(2000) 7 on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information
Strasbourg case-law cited: Barthold v. Germany, 25 March 1985, § 58, Series A no. 90;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65, ECHR 1999-III;Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, ECHR 2004-XI;Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 100, 15 July 2003;Financial Times Ltd. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, 15 December 2009;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999-I;Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II;Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, § 69, ECHR 2008;Hertel v. Switzerland, 25 August 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-VI;Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, 18 May 2010);Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28;Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, §§ 62-63, 1 July 2008;Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV;Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 44, Series A no. 103;Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 19, ECHR 2006-XIII;Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 68, Series A no. 216;Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, §§ 68-71, ECHR 2004-XI;Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IV;S.T.S. v. the Netherlands, no. 277/05, § 73, ECHR 2011;Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, 14 September 2010;Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, § 76, ECHR 2006-VII;Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 85, Series A no. 61;Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 87, ECHR 2005-II;The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, § 54, Series A no. 217;The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 48, Series A no. 30;Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 63, Series A no. 239;Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 64, 27 November 2007;TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, ECHR 2008 (extracts);Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. the Netherlands, 9 February 1995, § 45, Series A no. 306-A;Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, 22 November 2007;Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI
External sources: Section 6(2)(a) and 19 of the 2002 Intelligence and Security Services Act;Article 96a and 552a of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information)
Separate opinion: TRUE