Leempoel & S.A. ED. Ciné Revue v. Belgium (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 85

April 2006

Leempoel & S.A. ED. Ciné Revue v. Belgium (dec.) - 64772/01

Decision 2.3.2006 [Section I]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Withdrawal from sale of a magazine which had published notes prepared by an investigating judge for a hearing before a parliamentary commission of inquiry: admissible

In connection with a parliamentary commission of inquiry set up to examine “the manner in which the police and judicial investigations were conducted in the Dutroux case”, D., the investigating judge who had been responsible for the investigation into the abduction of two girls, gave evidence to the commission at public hearings that were broadcast in full on television. Following one of the hearings the chairman of the commission unexpectedly asked the judge to hand over the file she had brought with her in preparation, which contained a series of documents including personal notes about her defence and recommendations as to how to communicate and conduct herself before the commission. After the file had been handed over, it was made available exclusively to members of the commission of inquiry, who were nonetheless obliged to consult it on the premises and were unable to make copies of it. At a subsequent hearing, which was also public and broadcast on television, Judge D. was questioned by commission members about certain extracts from her preparatory notes. The weekly magazine Ciné Télé Revue published an article which contained lengthy extracts from the preparatory file which the judge had handed to the commission of inquiry. The article was advertised on the front cover of the magazine by the headline “Exclusive – A surprising attitude: how Judge D. prepared her defence – Revelations from her file”, superimposed on a photograph of the judge. On the same day, on an application by Judge D., the urgent-applications judge ordered the withdrawal of every copy of the magazine from sales outlets within three hours after notification of the decision, with a penalty of approximately EUR 250 per copy for failure to comply, and prohibited any subsequent distribution of a copy featuring the same cover and the same article. The injunction was upheld on appeal, on the ground that the information published was subject to the rules on confidentiality of parliamentary inquiries and that its publication had interfered with defence rights and with the judge’s right to respect for her private life. The applicants were considered to have been negligent because they must have known that the published notes were only to be consulted by members of the commission and were not to leave the parliament’s premises. The applicants replied that most of the content of the notes had been read out by the members of the commission at a hearing that had been broadcast on television live and in full two weeks before the prohibited publication.

Admissible under Article 10.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy