Regional developer Chipshol has been presenting cases for years against Schiphol and other parties regarding the land surrounding the airport. Jan Poot, a hearty man who was president and managing director of the Chipshol group until 1996, regularly posts reports on the legal battle via schipholwanbeleid.nl and via advertising space purchased in newspapers. He makes no secret of his opinions. For instance, a pamphlet that graced the paid pages of Het Haarlems Dagblad on 28 June 2011 accuses X (mentioned by full name) of threatening the Poot family. X categorically denies having done any such thing.
Normally, a case like this would be decided by a state court, but that’s not what happened here: X submitted a complaint to the Advertising Code Committee (RCC). And his complaint was honoured. Then the Appeals Board ruled that the pamphlet promotes the ‘concept’ that X is a bad guy, and therefore is considered advertising. Mr Poot was recommended not to advertise in this manner again.
It seems a stretch for Mr Poot’s heartfelt cry in the newspaper to be subjected to the standards of the Dutch Advertising Code. Can one really see the text as advertising? Is the Advertising Code supposed to set standards for these types of publications? The RCC and the Appeals Board each evaluate the issue in their own way – not according to the tried-and-tested method used by the usual courts. Mr Poot’s right to freedom of expression is not included in the consideration of the case. According to the Appeals Board, that’s not a problem. “This recommendation does not in any way detract from the appellant’s right to freedom of expression” – so the Appeals Board says. The statement seems to underestimate the publicity impact of the Appeals Board’s ruling. A recommendation made by the Advertising Code Committee or the Appeals Board can also restrict freedom of expression.
Where political or opinion-based texts are concerned, freedom of expression should play a major role. In the case involving the laughing prime minister, this fundamental right was given its own place in the considerations. Lead by example and the rest will follow!
Ebba Hoogenraad and Daniël Haije wrote a legal commentary on this decision in the IP and advertising review ‘Intellectuele Eigendom en Reclamerecht’ (IER).
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
Regional developer Chipshol has been presenting cases for years against Schiphol and other parties regarding the land surrounding the airport. Jan Poot, a hearty man who was president and managing director of the Chipshol group until 1996, regularly posts reports on the legal battle via schipholwanbeleid.nl and via advertising space purchased in newspapers. He makes no secret of his opinions. For instance, a pamphlet that graced the paid pages of Het Haarlems Dagblad on 28 June 2011 accuses X (mentioned by full name) of threatening the Poot family. X categorically denies having done any such thing.
Normally, a case like this would be decided by a state court, but that’s not what happened here: X submitted a complaint to the Advertising Code Committee (RCC). And his complaint was honoured. Then the Appeals Board ruled that the pamphlet promotes the ‘concept’ that X is a bad guy, and therefore is considered advertising. Mr Poot was recommended not to advertise in this manner again.
It seems a stretch for Mr Poot’s heartfelt cry in the newspaper to be subjected to the standards of the Dutch Advertising Code. Can one really see the text as advertising? Is the Advertising Code supposed to set standards for these types of publications? The RCC and the Appeals Board each evaluate the issue in their own way – not according to the tried-and-tested method used by the usual courts. Mr Poot’s right to freedom of expression is not included in the consideration of the case. According to the Appeals Board, that’s not a problem. “This recommendation does not in any way detract from the appellant’s right to freedom of expression” – so the Appeals Board says. The statement seems to underestimate the publicity impact of the Appeals Board’s ruling. A recommendation made by the Advertising Code Committee or the Appeals Board can also restrict freedom of expression.
Where political or opinion-based texts are concerned, freedom of expression should play a major role. In the case involving the laughing prime minister, this fundamental right was given its own place in the considerations. Lead by example and the rest will follow!
Ebba Hoogenraad and Daniël Haije wrote a legal commentary on this decision in the IP and advertising review ‘Intellectuele Eigendom en Reclamerecht’ (IER).