Last week Mediaforum published a casenote by Daniel Haije regarding a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR 19 March 2011, RTBF / Belgium).
Occasionally television broadcasts and other publications get banned by the Dutch court prior to publication. This is called a preventive publication ban. The RTBF/Belgium ruling seems to imply that Dutch preventive publication bans are not allowed under European law.
A good example of a case in which a preventive publication ban was imposed was the lawsuit that showbiz presenter Albert Verlinde and his partner Onno Hoes filed against BNN. In the summer of 2009 BNN presenters Sophie Hilbrand and Filemon Wesselink awarded Verlinde with the Gouden Oor (“Golden Ear”), "because Verlinde always listens so well." BNN hid a microphone in the fake award, and recorded several conversations between Verlinde and Hoes. The Amsterdam judge banned publication of the recordings.
According to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) a restriction on the freedom of expression, must be "provided by law". This means that the restriction must be based on law and / or case law, and that this legal framework must be sufficiently clear. In the case RTBF / Belgium the ECtHR ruled that an extra strict assessment of the legal framework applies in case of a preventive publication ban. The Court demands precise and specific rules on the type of restrictions authorised, their purpose, duration, scope and control. The Netherlands has no precise and specific rules regarding a preventive publication ban. Dutch law and jurisprudence are even distinctly vague about it. It seems that the Dutch legal framework does not fulfill the strict RTBF / Belgium criterion. That would mean that a preventive publication ban in the Netherlands is not "provided by law" and thus contrary to the ECHR. Good news for the freedom of speech!
Read the case note here (Dutch). The RTBF / Belgium judgment here (only available in French).
Daniël Haije
|
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 |
Last week Mediaforum published a casenote by Daniel Haije regarding a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR 19 March 2011, RTBF / Belgium).
Occasionally television broadcasts and other publications get banned by the Dutch court prior to publication. This is called a preventive publication ban. The RTBF/Belgium ruling seems to imply that Dutch preventive publication bans are not allowed under European law.
A good example of a case in which a preventive publication ban was imposed was the lawsuit that showbiz presenter Albert Verlinde and his partner Onno Hoes filed against BNN. In the summer of 2009 BNN presenters Sophie Hilbrand and Filemon Wesselink awarded Verlinde with the Gouden Oor (“Golden Ear”), "because Verlinde always listens so well." BNN hid a microphone in the fake award, and recorded several conversations between Verlinde and Hoes. The Amsterdam judge banned publication of the recordings.
According to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) a restriction on the freedom of expression, must be "provided by law". This means that the restriction must be based on law and / or case law, and that this legal framework must be sufficiently clear. In the case RTBF / Belgium the ECtHR ruled that an extra strict assessment of the legal framework applies in case of a preventive publication ban. The Court demands precise and specific rules on the type of restrictions authorised, their purpose, duration, scope and control. The Netherlands has no precise and specific rules regarding a preventive publication ban. Dutch law and jurisprudence are even distinctly vague about it. It seems that the Dutch legal framework does not fulfill the strict RTBF / Belgium criterion. That would mean that a preventive publication ban in the Netherlands is not "provided by law" and thus contrary to the ECHR. Good news for the freedom of speech!
Read the case note here (Dutch). The RTBF / Belgium judgment here (only available in French).
Daniël Haije