Published on 22 June 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 13566/26 and 13586/26
WINGMAN MEDIA APS against Denmark
and TV 2 DANMARK A/S against Denmark
lodged on 31 March 2026 and 31 March 2026 respectively
communicated on 1 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants, a media company and a national television station in Denmark, produced a television series, initially with five episodes, described as a documentary, called “The Black Swan”, which was broadcast for the first time in May 2024. The producers had hired a lawyer, SA, with ties to the criminal underworld to become a mole. For a long period of time, with a set up office, hidden cameras and audio recordings, SA exposed the collaborations between various criminals, lawyers, and businesspeople. The programme was seen by numerous viewers, in Denmark and abroad, and created a vivid public debate.
Subsequently, a lawyer, LR, was charged with inter alia, money laundering.
By a High Court decision of 3 October 2025, which became final on 10 December 2025, at the request of the police, adhered to by LR, by virtue of section 804(1) of the Administration of Justice Act, the applicant television station, which apparently was not under any suspicion, was ordered to hand over (edition) raw material where LR was seen or mentioned, and to hand over correspondence between the producers of the documentary and SA, in so far as it concerned LR, provided that it had evidential value to four specific counts in the indictment against LR, and it was not covered by section 172(2) of the said Act (that is, if the participants had been promised that they could participate without the possibility of being identified).
The applicant companies complained that the High Court’s decision of 3 October 2025 breached their rights under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In relation to the production and broadcast of “The Black Swan”, were the applicants suspected of or charged with any criminal offences? If so, when? And if so, did the High Court’s decision of 3 October 2025 respect the applicants’ right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention not to incriminate themselves?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (see for example, Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005‑XIII)?
3. If so, was the interference necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see, among others, Becker v. Norway (application no. 21272/12) 5/10 2017)?