issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 160 (2012) 12.04.

2012

Reasons for search of Midi Libre premises were relevant but insufficient, in violation of journalists freedom of expression
In todays Chamber judgment in the case of Martin and Others v. France (application no. 30002/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned a search of the premises of the Midi Libre daily newspaper ordered by an investigating judge to determine in what circumstances and conditions journalists had obtained a copy of a confidential draft report of the Regional Audit Office concerning the management of the Languedoc-Roussillon region.

Principal facts
The applicants, Francois Martin, Jacky Vilaceque, Anthony Jones and Pierre Bruynooghe, are French nationals who were born in 1955, 1949, 1955 and 1961 and live in Poulx Assas, Poussan and Montpellier respectively. They are journalists at the Midi Libre daily newspaper. On 31 August 2005 the Languedoc-Roussillon Regional Audit Office drafted a report criticising the management of the region during the period when Mr J.B. a member of the French Senate since 2001, was president of the regional council. The Midi Libre daily newspaper published several articles quoting passages from the report, even though it was legally confidential. On 3 November 2005 Mr J.B. lodged a complaint, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, for breach of professional secrecy and handling of information thus disclosed. In order to determine in what circumstances the journalists had obtained the confidential information, the investigating judge, assisted by a computer expert, decided to order a search of the newspapers premises. The search took place on 5 July 2006, and various documents were seized and placed under seal, including a copy of the Audit Office report. The judge also had copies made of the computer hard drives of the journalists concerned. Analysis of the hard drives revealed traces of the Audit office report on two journalists computers. The investigation failed to reveal who had given or sent the confidential report to the journalists. Following the investigation, the judge had Francois Martin, Jacky Vilaceque and Anthony Jones placed under investigation for handling information disclosed in breach of
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:

www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

professional secrecy, followed a little later by Pierre Bruynooghe. When questioned by the judge, they all exercised their right as journalists to protect their sources. On 6 April 2007 the journalists requested that the search and all the subsequent proceedings be set aside, arguing that they were in violation of the freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the Convention. In a judgment of 3 July 2007 the investigation chamber of the Montpellier Court of Appeal rejected their request, pointing out that the search had been carried out to determine how the journalists had managed to obtain information from a confidential report. It added that the principle of the protection of journalistic sources should not obstruct the search for the truth in criminal matters, which could legitimately be pursued by searching press offices and seizing evidence. The journalists lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that in failing to verify whether the search had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary, in a democratic society, to achieve that aim, the Court of Appeal had violated Article 10 of the Convention. In a judgment of 4 December 2007 the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, considering that the search had been conducted in conformity with criminal procedure and that the interference had been necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely the protection of the rights of others in this case the presumption of innocence , the protection of confidential information and the need to prevent behaviour that obstructed the search for the truth. In the interim, however, on 22 May 2007, the investigating judge had discharged the journalists, noting that it had not been possible to establish that the person who had leaked the information was bound by a duty of professional secrecy, and that as no prior offence had been established, the charge of handling information disclosed as a result of a breach of that duty could not stand. In a judgment of 4 October 2007 the Montpellier Court of Appeal confirmed that as no breach of professional secrecy had been established, there could be no offence of handling information disclosed as a result of such a breach.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicants complained that the investigation to which they had been subjected had violated the provisions of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression). The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 June 2008. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows: Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President, Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Botjan M. Zupani (Slovenia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Ann Power-Forde (Ireland), Angelika Nuberger (Germany), Andr Potocki (France), Judges, and also Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 10
The Court reiterated that it had already found that searches conducted in journalists homes or places of work with a view to identifying the sources of breaches of professional secrecy infringed the rights protected by Article 10 of the Convention. In this case there had been interference with the journalists freedom to receive or communicate information. In the Courts view, that interference had been prescribed by law and its aim had been to prevent the publication of confidential information and to protect the rights of others, in particular the presumption of innocence. The crux of the matter was whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, answered a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and whether the reasons given by the authorities to justify it were relevant and sufficient. The Court noted that the applicants were journalists who had published articles in a daily newspaper containing extracts from a draft report by the Languedoc-Roussillon Regional Audit Office criticising the management of the region when J.B. was president of the council. The offending articles mainly contained information concerning the management of public funds by elected officials, which was criticised in the report. The Court had no doubt that this was a topic of general interest that the journalists were entitled to bring to the attention of the public. The role of investigative journalists was precisely to inform and alert the public, particularly of bad news, as soon as the information came into their possession. The journalists had mentioned on the first page of the newspaper that the information came from a draft report that might be amended in the light of the response of the people it criticised. The Court considered that the journalists had made a clear presentation of the report in question that displayed their good faith and respect for the ethics of their profession. The Court noted that the report in question had been communicated to the former president of the Languedoc-Roussillon regional council and that extracts had been sent to the seventy people criticised in the report. The judge who had placed the journalists under investigation had stated in his order of 22 May 2007 that the investigation had failed to establish whether the person at the origin of the leak had been bound by a duty of professional secrecy. The investigation chamber of the Montpellier Court of Appeal had noted that the people to whom the report had been sent were not bound by a duty of professional secrecy, and that according to the Financial Judicature Code, documents in draft form were not automatically classified. The Court wondered whether measures other than searching the newspapers offices might have enabled the investigating judge to determine whether there had been a breach of professional secrecy. The Government had failed to demonstrate that without the search the authorities would have been unable to seek evidence, first, that there had been a breach of professional secrecy and then that information thus wrongfully obtained had been published. In view of the above, the Court concluded that the Government had not demonstrated that the competing interests namely the protection of journalists sources and the prevention and repression of crime had been properly balanced. The reasons given by the authorities to justify the search could be considered relevant, but not sufficient. The search had accordingly been disproportionate and had violated the applicants right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

Article 41
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that France was to pay each of the applicants 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Courts press releases, please subscribe to the Courts RSS feeds. Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Cline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.