A Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands ügy a következőképp foglalható össze
“The case concerned photographs, to be used for an article on illegal car racing, which the company was compelled to hand over to police investigating another crime, despite the journalists strong objections to being forced to divulge material capable of identifying confidential sources.
On 12 January 2002 an illegal car race was held in an industrial area on the outskirts of the town of Hoorn. The company maintained that journalists working for its magazine Autoweek – who were doing a feature article on illegal car racing - were given permission to cover the event, provided that they did not identify those involved. The photographs were to be touched up to prevent the identification of the cars or participants and then stored on a CD-ROM. In the event, the race was stopped by the police, who were also present. No arrests were made.
The police later suspected that one of the cars (an Audi RS4) used in the race had also been used as the getaway car in a ram raid on 1 February 2001, during which a cash point machine was stolen and a bystander threatened with a firearm.
Later that day the police tried to order the applicant company to surrender the CD-ROM containing the photographs for seizure. The applicant company refused, in order to protect the confidentiality of their journalistic sources. The Amsterdam public prosecutor then issued the company with a summons under Article 96a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 96a) to surrender the photographs and any related material concerning the race. The magazine’s editor-in-chief refused, again invoking the journalists’ undertaking not to identify the participants.
A Nagytanács megállapította:
"In conclusion, the quality of the law in question was deficient in that there was no procedure with adequate legal safeguards available to the applicant company to enable an independent assessment as to whether the interest of the criminal investigation overrode the public interest in the protection of journalistic sources. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10 in that the interference complained of was not “prescribed by law." (kiemelés tőlem)
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése