EHRM, 22-11-2007, nr. 64752/01

The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Amsterdam.

On 30 March 2000 the Amsterdam Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) convicted three accused, Messrs K., Van S. and H., of arms trafficking. In the criminal investigation into the offences at issue, the Amsterdam police had stated that an arsenal of weapons had been found by chance: the caretaker of a building situated on the Nachtwachtlaan in Amsterdam had contacted the police when water was leaking from one of the flats in the building, whose occupants were absent. With the aid of two locksmiths, the police had gained entry to the flat and in the subsequent search for the source of the leak, the weapons had been found.

The accused lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court.

On 12 and 13 September 2000 the daily newspaper Sp!ts published two articles, written by the applicant and his colleague Ms S., in which doubts were expressed about the amount of coincidence allegedly involved in the finding of the weapons. The article of 13 September 2000, entitled ‘Chance Hit or Perfect Shot?’ (‘Toevalstreffer of loepzuiver schot?’), quotes an unnamed policeman of the Amsterdam force as commenting in respect of the flooding, ‘That is what we made out of it. Sometimes you just need a breakthrough in an investigation’ (‘Dat hebben we er maar van gemaakt. Soms heb je net even een doorbraak nodig in je onderzoek’).

In the proceedings on appeal against K., Van S. and H., the applicant and Ms S. were summonsed to appear as witnesses at the request of the defence. At the first hearing before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) on 22 September 2000 in the cases against Van S. and K., the applicant — who was assisted by counsel — stated inter alia that he knew that the policeman, whom he had quoted verbatim in the article of 13 September 2000, had been involved in a previous investigation against K. When the applicant was asked whether that policeman was also involved in the investigation of the flat or was aware of that investigation, he invoked his right of non-disclosure (verschoningsrecht). Counsel for the defence argued that both the individual interest of the accused — on whom a custodial sentence had been imposed as a result of the investigation carried out by the police — and the interest of criminal justice in the Netherlands outweighed the applicant's interest in not disclosing his source. The Advocate General also expressed as his opinion that the applicant could not invoke a right of non-disclosure. He stated in addition that the source, if his name was made known, had nothing to fear from either the police or the public prosecution service.

After having deliberated, the Court of Appeal considered that, if the statement made by the police officer to the applicant was correct, this might affect the conviction of the accused. It also affected the integrity of the police and judicial authorities. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant was to reply to the question whether his source had been involved in the investigation of the flat and had been aware of that investigation. The President of the court further reminded the applicant that the court was empowered to order his detention for failure to comply with a judicial order (gijzeling). Upon this, the applicant replied that his source had both been aware of, and involved in, the investigation of the flat.

Asked by counsel for the accused to reveal the identity of his source, the applicant once again invoked his right of non-disclosure. Counsel for the applicant submitted that he was justified in so doing, given that disclosing the identity of his source would render it impossible for the applicant to work as a journalist in the future since sources would no longer approach him. The interests of the journalist and of freedom of expression outweighed other interests. Moreover, as the criminal charges at issue concerned only arms trafficking and not, for example, a multiple homicide, it was disproportionate to require the applicant to name his source. It also went against the principle of subsidiarity, since there were other ways in which the identity of the source could be discovered.

In reply, the Advocate General stated that journalists exposed obvious wrongs (kennelijke misstanden) in society. Where they chose to do so, they should also face the consequences. The applicant was the only witness who could clarify whether or not the three accused had been wrongly convicted. In the present case, where official records, drawn up on oath of office (ambtseed) by police officers, and the integrity of the judicial authorities were at stake, the applicant must reveal the identity of his source. It could not be the case that, in order to trace this identity, every member of the Amsterdam police force should be heard, bearing in mind that all officers in the case against K. had already been heard by the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris).

Having deliberated, the Court of Appeal decided that the applicant was to reveal the identity of his source, for the same reasons as it had held that he had to reply to the question of his source's involvement in the investigation. The applicant invoked his right to remain silent (zwijgrecht), upon which the court ordered his immediate detention for a maximum of 30 days. No legal remedy lay against the decision to detain the applicant (Article 294 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — Wetboek van Strafvordering, ‘CCP’).

When questioned by counsel for the accused, the applicant's colleague, Ms S., stated that she was aware of the identity of the source, but that she had never met him in person. Having regard to this last fact, as well as to the fact that the journalist who had had direct contact with the source — i.e. the applicant — had already been placed in detention, the Court of Appeal considered that Ms S. was not obliged to reveal the identity of the source.

The applicant was served with an unreasoned decision on 25 September 2000. On 27 September 2000 he was handed a copy of the record of the hearing of 22 September, containing the decisions made by the Court of Appeal at that hearing and the reasons for them.

Late on 22 September 2000 the applicant lodged a request with the Court of Appeal to be released from detention. Prior to the examination of this request on 27 September 2000, the applicant was able to consult his lawyer only once, namely in the evening of 25 September. Requests to visit the applicant on 22, 23, 24, (the afternoon of) 25, 26 and 27 September were refused. The request for release was dealt with by the Court of Appeal in chambers (raadkamer), by the same judges who had ordered his detention.

At the hearing in chambers on 27 September 2000, the Advocate General reported that, following the applicant's statements at the hearing on 22 September, a police inspector had carried out an internal investigation, which had revealed that only eight police officers had been involved in both the first and the second investigation into the accused K. All these officers had made sworn affidavits to the effect that they had never been in contact with the applicant.

Informed of the outcome of the internal police investigation, the applicant insisted that he did not want to reveal the identity of his source. He stated that he was a journalist and that he might as well give up on that career if he started revealing his sources; no sources wanting to remain anonymous would any longer be willing to provide him with tip-offs. The applicant was informed by the President of the Court of Appeal that the right of non-disclosure was not absolute, and that more weighty interests could be at stake. In the present case, long prison sentences had been imposed on the three accused, partly on the basis of official records drawn up by police officers. The applicant replied that he was willing to state only that his source was not one of the police officers who had made sworn affidavits in the internal police investigation.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the journalist should be the last, rather than the first, means of arriving at the truth. The witnesses, whose examination had been requested by the three accused, ought to be heard first. Those witnesses could be confronted with the articles published in Sp!ts as well as with the article which had appeared in the weekly news magazine Vrij Nederland on 8 January 2000. This latter article had also suggested that the flooding of the flat had been staged, and the author had informed counsel for the applicant that the information contained in the article had not come from the same source as the one relied on by the applicant. Counsel for the applicant further posited that the State Criminal Investigation Department (Rijksrecherche) could carry out an investigation of the police force. Finally, it was for the Court of Appeal to assess the value of the article written by the applicant — that court could also decide to disregard it.

By decision of 28 September 2000, the Court of Appeal refused the applicant's request for his detention to be lifted. It repeated that the interests of the accused and of the integrity of the police and the judicial authorities outweighed the interest of the applicant in not having to disclose the identity of his source. Having regard to the outcome of the internal police investigation, as well as to the fact that an appeal made by the police commissioner for the applicant's source to come forward had not produced any results, the Court of Appeal considered it unlikely that an investigation by the State Criminal Investigation Department would clarify, within a reasonable time, the cause of the flooding, quite apart from the fact that such an investigation would seriously delay the criminal proceedings against K., Van S. and H. The Court of Appeal similarly rejected the suggestion to hear the witnesses proposed by the defence first, given that those witnesses had already been heard extensively about the point in issue. For these reasons, it could not be held that the detention of the applicant breached the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.

The Court of Appeal further considered that the applicant's objections against the order for his detention as given at the hearing of 22 September 2000 did not require examination since no appeal lay against such order. It also rejected the argument that the order had not been served on the applicant within 24 hours, since — as appeared from the record of that hearing of 22 September — he had been informed of the order orally. Finally, the Court of Appeal held that the possibilities for contact between the applicant and his counsel were laid down in penitentiary legislation. It was not for the Court of Appeal to assess the application of that legislation.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) against the decision of the Court of Appeal.

A second hearing before the Court of Appeal in the criminal proceedings against Van S. and H. took place on 9 October 2000. The applicant once again refused to reveal the identity of his source. Upon this, the Court of Appeal decided to lift the order for the applicant's detention. It considered that no support for, or confirmation of, the applicant's statement that he had received information from a police officer who had been involved in both investigations against the accused K. could be found in statements made by other persons and/or in the contents of documents. On the contrary, the applicant's statement had been contradicted by ten police officers. Therefore, no credence could be attached to his statement. This being the case, the applicant's detention no longer served any purpose.

At the same hearing on 9 October 2000, and following the Court of Appeal's decision to lift the applicant's detention, counsel for the accused K. challenged (wraken) the Court of Appeal. A different chamber of the Court of Appeal upheld that challenge, also on 9 October 2000. It held that the opinion that the applicant's statement was not credible, as expressed by the Court of Appeal in the criminal proceedings against Van S. and H., might have a bearing on decisions which that court would be called upon to take in the criminal proceedings against K. This constituted an exceptional circumstance, providing an important indication for the conclusion that the accused's fear of a judge being prejudiced against him was objectively justified.

The criminal proceedings against the three accused continued on 30 October 2000 before the Court of Appeal in a new composition. The applicant was again heard as a witness, as were seven other journalists who had also published articles about the case against K. and the possibility of the flooding having been staged. The Court of Appeal also heard two plumbers and the caretaker of the building.

Subsequent to the decision to lift the order for his detention, the applicant withdrew his appeal on points of law as his release had rendered that appeal devoid of interest.

According to the Government, the criminal proceedings against K., Van S. and H. have been brought to a conclusion.

The applicant has submitted photocopies of two cuttings from print media.

The first is of a report in the mass circulation daily newspaper De Telegraaf, dated 24 September 1999. It is therein stated that following reports of flooding from a second flat in Amsterdam, police had found another large quantity of weaponry. Messrs K., Van S. and H., the accused in the applicant's case, were not at that time suspected of involvement; the weapons were thought to belong to a terrorist organisation. The report drew attention to the similarity between the Nachtwachtlaan case and this new case as regards the circumstances in which the weapons were found. It cited ‘police sources’ as suggesting that intelligence services, possibly foreign, had engineered events in order to protect their informants.

The second, which is incomplete, is of an article that appeared on 8 January 2000 in the weekly magazine Vrij Nederland. It links the two events and cites an unnamed source as stating that they had in fact been engineered by the then Netherlands National Security Service (Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst —‘the BVD’).

It appears that the report in De Telegraaf and the article in Vrij Nederland were both written by journalists other than the applicant.

The applicant has also submitted a printout of a page taken from the internet web site of the Amsterdam daily newspaper Het Parool, dated 27 September 2000. It quotes the two plumbers who were called in to repair the water leak as dismissing as nonsense all allegations that the damage had been caused deliberately; in actual fact, such leaks were very common in older buildings.

Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relevant to the case provide as follows:

Article 218

Article 294

Articles 223, 224 and 225, which are thus declared applicable to witnesses at the trial hearing, per se apply to witnesses heard by an investigating judge.

Article 223 § 3 provides, in relevant part, that the detained witness may appeal within three days after the official notification in writing of the decision against any refusal to order his release from detention and may appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court against any such refusal given on appeal.

Article 224 provides that the witness shall receive notification in writing within twenty-four hours of all decisions to order or extend his detention or to refuse his release from detention.

Article 225 provides that the witness shall have the right to consult counsel. His counsel shall have unrestricted access (vrije toegang) to him, be allowed to see him in private and exchange confidential correspondence with him, subject to detention rules and provided that the criminal investigation in which his evidence was sought not be delayed. Counsel shall also have access to any official records relating to the questioning of the witness and, if the criminal investigation admits of it, the remainder of the case file.

Although these provisions by their wording apply to proceedings at first instance before the Regional Court, by virtue of Article 415 they apply by analogy to appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal.

The Guidelines on the position of the press in relation to police action (Leidraad over de positie van de pers bij politieoptreden) were issued by the Minister of Justice (Minister van Justitie) on 19 May 1988. At the time of the events complained of, they provided, in relevant part:

This section of the Guidelines was replaced with effect from 1 April 2002 by the ‘Directive on the application of coercive measures to journalists’ (Aanwijzing toepassing dwangmiddelen bij journalisten), issued by the Board of Procurators General (College van procureurs-generaal). This directive makes extensive reference to the Court's case-law. If the protection of a journalist's source is at issue, the use of coercive measures must be in accordance with Article 10 § 2 with due regard to requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity.

In a civil case — brought by persons named in connection with alleged bribery against two journalists who had allegedly made use of information leaked by officials — the Supreme Court, reversing earlier case-law, held (judgment of 10 May 1996, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (Netherlands Law Reports) 1996, no. 578):

Recommendation No. R(2000) 7 on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 8 March 2000. It states, in relevant part:

For the precise application of the Recommendation, the explanatory notes clarify the meaning of certain terms. As regards the term ‘sources’ the explanation reads as follows:

The Government initially objected in limine that since the applicant had failed to pursue his appeal on points of law to a conclusion (see paragraph 27 above) it followed that he had not exhausted the domestic remedies available. However, by a letter of 2 March 2006 they withdrew that objection on the ground that the Supreme Court would have dismissed the appeal as inadmissible given that the applicant had already been released.

The Court notes that the applicant's complaint under Article 10 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

The Government did not attempt to argue that domestic law had been complied with.

As the Court has held many times, on the question whether detention is ‘lawful’, including whether it complies with ‘a procedure prescribed by law’ the Convention refers back essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof (see, among many other authorities, Wassink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 185-A, p. 11, § 24; Öcalan v. Turkey[GC], no. 46221/99, § 83, 12 May 2005; and Nakach v. the Netherlands, no. 5379/02, § 37, 30 June 2005).

The Court observes that, although the decision ordering the applicant detained on the ground of refusing to give evidence was not required to be reasoned as the applicant suggested, domestic law did provide for notification in writing of the detention order within twenty-four hours (Article 224 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — see paragraph 37 above). The Government do not deny that the applicant was only provided with a written copy of the order some three days later. The Court therefore finds that the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.