Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 40

March 2002

Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg (dec.) - 51772/99

Decision 12.3.2002 [Section IV]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Criminal investigation aimed at identifying a journalist’s sources: admissible

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for home

Search of lawyer’s office and seizure of a letter: admissible

The first applicant is a journalist and the second applicant is the lawyer who represented him in the case brought before the Court. In July 1998 the journalist published an article in a daily newspaper alleging that a Luxembourg minister had been committing VAT fraud and had consequently been ordered to pay a tax penalty. The applicants produced documents in support of those allegations and, in particular, a decision of the director of the registration and domains authority ordering the minister to pay the fine in question. Two sets of proceedings were instituted following publication of the article by the first applicant. The first, which was an action for damages brought by the minister, is currently pending on appeal after the minister lost in the court of first instance. In the second set of proceedings, instituted by a criminal complaint lodged by the minister, an investigating judge began an investigation concerning a charge against the first applicant of concealing a breach of professional secrecy and against a person or persons unknown of breaching professional secrecy. The public prosecutor stated, in his application to commence proceedings, that it needed to be established which civil servants of the authority in question had had access to the relevant documents. The first two searches ordered by the investigating judge, one at the first applicant’s house and the other at his place of work, proved fruitless, but the applicant failed in his applications to have the investigating judge’s orders set aside. On searching the second applicant’s chambers the investigators seized an internal and confidential letter which post-dated the article and had been sent by the director of the registration and domains authority. The applicants explained that the letter had been sent anonymously to the editorial board of the newspaper of the first applicant, who had immediately handed it to his lawyer. As that search was nullified, the seized document was returned, but on the same day the investigating judge made a fresh order, which was confirmed valid, allowing it to be seized again. The criminal proceedings are still pending.

Admissible under Article 10 with regard to the first applicant’s right, in his capacity as a journalist, not to reveal his sources.

Admissible under Article 8 with regard to the seizure carried out in the second applicant’s chambers.

© 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