Search
document

Document text Analytics

GOODWIN v. the UNITED KINGDOMDISSENTING OPINION OF MR. S. TRECHSEL JOINED BY

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: March 1, 1994

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

GOODWIN v. the UNITED KINGDOMDISSENTING OPINION OF MR. S. TRECHSEL JOINED BY

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: March 1, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. S. TRECHSEL JOINED BY

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, F. ERMACORA, G. JÖRUNDSSON, H. G. SCHERMERS

AND J.-C. GEUS

Contrary to the majority, I have come to the conclusion that the

facts of the present case do not disclose a violation of Article 10 of

the Convention.

I agree that there has been an interference with the applicant's

rights under Article 10. This means that I agree with the basic

principle that a journalist has a legitimate interest in protecting his

sources of information.

However, this legitimate interest may enter into conflict with

other legitimate interests such as the protection of private life,

economic well-being, national security etc. In my view the majority

of the Commission has given too much weight to the interest of a

journalist in protecting his sources as an element of freedom of

expression. I am of the opinion, having regard to the duties and

responsibilities referred to in Article 10, that the protection of a

journalist's sources is only justified in cases where the disclosure

of confidential information clearly serves a public interest. In cases

where, for example, an abuse of office, corruption or any other

perversion of private or public power is in issue, the journalist

should not be compelled to disclose his sources.

In the present case the information concerned a corporation which

employed approximately 400 persons and was engaged in a delicate

financial operation designed to avert its economic collapse.

Disclosure of these plans was likely to frustrate the efforts to save

X Ltd.

The appearance of a leak in the corporation must be regarded as

an extremely important issue for X Ltd. On the other hand, I fail to

see a public interest of any weight in having the kind of secret

information in question published.

When weighing the applicant's interests in not disclosing his

sources in order to be able to inform the public of confidential

matters against the interest of X Ltd. to have the sources disclosed

in order to avoid further harm being done, I find that the latter

clearly outweighs the former. In my opinion, therefore, the

interference with the applicant's freedom of expression could be

regarded as necessary for the protection of the rights of others and

for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence.

Appendix I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

________________________________________________________________

27.09.90 Introduction of the application

26.11.90 Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

07.04.92 Commission's decision to invite the parties to

submit observations on the admissibility and

merits

18.08.92 Government's observations

03.12.92 Applicant's reply

11.12.92 Commission's grant of legal aid

02.04.93 Commission's decision to invite the parties to

an oral hearing

07.09.93 Hearing on admissibility and merits

07.09.93 Commission's decision to declare the application

admissible

Examination of the merits

07.09.93 Commission's deliberations

25.10.93 Government's observations

10.01.94 Consideration of the state of proceedings

01.03.94 Commission's deliberations on the merits, final

votes and adoption of the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant