The publication of R.P.’s portrait was necessary in a democratic society.
"Turning to the facts of the case, the Court sees no reason to doubt that the newspaper article – which announced the trial of R.P. for having stabbed three members of the staff of a shelter for the homeless in Amsterdam with a knife, killing one and seriously injuring the two others – was a matter of serious public concern. The same may be said about the violent subculture to which R.P. belonged and R.P.’s personal circumstances in so far as they were typical of members of that social group. Nor is there any reason to doubt that R.P. enjoyed a certain notoriety, which he had actively encouraged by giving his cooperation to the 2007 television documentary and the rap clip made available on YouTube; that the article published by the applicants in the newspaper Het Parool and on their web site was true and correct; and that adding the portrait image enhanced the article’s expressive power."
However, the ECHR considers that it was not unreasonable for the Court of Appeal to consider that reticence is appropriate when publishing a portrait of someone who is suspected of a serious crime.
"35. In the view of the Court of Appeal, however, these features of the case did not outweigh R.P.’s right to respect for his private life. R.P. was, at the time, suspected of a very serious crime, for which he had yet to be tried; in the words of the Court of Appeal, “in publishing portraits of persons suspected of criminal acts reticence [was], in principle, appropriate.”
36. The Court does not consider that the Court of Appeal acted unreasonably in deciding thus. It considers this view to be supported not only by Principle 8 set out in the Appendix to the Recommendation Rec(2003)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings (see paragraph 21 above) but by its own case-law (see, in particular, Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway, no. 34438/04, § 62, 16 April 2009, and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, §§ 59-60, 80 and 81, ECHR 2016)."
IPPT20160920, ECHR, Van Beukering & Parool v The Netherlands
7323/14
