Journalists worldwide, wheather working for a local or national newspaper, or national or

international television companies, depend on non-journalists for the supply of information on

issues of public interest. In many situations, anonymity is the precondition upon which the
information is given, because of the possible repercussions which might affect their physical
safety or job security.
The need to protect their sources is so strong that many journalists are bound by professional
codes of ethics from revealing them.
Despite the clear advantages of ensuring the protection of jounalistic sources there are situatios
when the interest of journalists clash with other powerful interests and rights.
For example when journalists refuse to name informants in court, the outcome of the trial may be
affected. So it is right and proper that judges should seek all relevant evidence.
Despite all these problems it must be borne in mind that journalism plays a vital democtratic role
in exposing wrongdoing.

The recognition of protection of journalistic sources is fairly well established in Europe both at
the regional and domestic levels.
For the most part, the protections seem to be respected by authorities in most cases and direct
demands to sources seem more the exception than the common practice.
The European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe have taken a leading role in
acknowledging that the protection is an essential element of freedom of expression.
It has also been recognized by the EU Parliament and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
At the domestic level, nearly every country in the region has now adopted at least some specific
recognition in law. In those few countries that do not have specific laws, the courts generally
recognize the primacy of the ECtHR case law.

Romania is among the countries without legal protection, and the authorities have been active in
seeking to force journalists to divulge confidential sources. The Journalists Code of Ethics ,
established by the members of the Media Organisations Convention in 2004, provides that a
journalist has the responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of those sources who demand it,
or of sources whose life, physical or mental integrity or work place could be in jeopardy if their
identity was revealed. Also, article 3 states that the protection of professional secrecy and of
confidential sources is both a right and an obligation for a journalist.
This Code fulfils all conditions requested by the ECHR regarding press freedom. However, one
could argue the efficiency, because of the lack of legal status.
The ECtHR has repeatedly emphasised that Article 10 of the ECHR safeguards not only the
substance and contents of information and ideas but also the means of transmitting it.
Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom(). Without
such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on
matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be

undermined, and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information be adversely
affected. [A]n order of source disclosure ... cannot be compatible with Article 10 of the
Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest. (Goodwin v.
the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 March 1996, 39).

Article 10 grants everybody a right to receive and impart information and ideas without
interference by public authority. But it adds that the right carries with it duties and
responsibilities and stipulates the conditions where the right can be limited.
The limits:
- must first be stated in law
- they must conform to what is necessary in a democratic society
Other limits:
- Interest of national security;
- Prevention of disorder and crime;
- Protection of health and morals;
- Protection of the reputation or rights of others;
- Preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence;
- Maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

In 1989, Peugeot boss Jacques Calvet rejected workers' pay demands during industrial relations
conflict at the French car firm. However, Claude Roire, journalist at Le Canard Enchan
obtained photocopies of confidential tax files which showed M Calvet had increased his own
salary by 45.9% over two years. Roire and Roger Fressoz, the paper's director of publication
were fined a total of 15,000 Francs for breach of professional secrecy.
The Strasbourg court noted that the journalists had duties and responsibilities to obey the law, but
"in the particular circumstances" of this case,"the interest in the public's being informed
outweighed" any responsibility to remain silent about what had been highly confidential
documents.

In Belgium, two journalists were convicted by a civil court for abuse of freedom of the press and
for having exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism by insulting and defaming four members
of the judiciary. In several articles, De Haes en Gijsels had accused three judges and an
Advocate-General of marked bias and cowardice. The two journalists especially expressed the
opinion that the judges hadn't been impartial in their handling of a case on the custody and sexual
abuse of children (case of Mr. X). Their story was backed up by evidence in the hands of another
Belgian court.

Rather than identify their informants, De Haes & Gijsels sought to use this evidence in their
defence against the defamation case. But the Brussels court chose to see this request as proof that
they had not shown enough diligence in researching their story, and refused to allow them to
introduce this court evidence instead of revealing their own sources.
The Court however is of the opinion that the conviction of the two journalists because of their
accusations of bias and lack of independence against the judges and the Advocate-general, is a
breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

Tillack, a journalist working in Brussels, was suspected of having bribed a civil servant, by
paying him EUR 8,000, in exchange for confidential information concerning investigations in
progress in the European institutions. The European Anti-Fraud Office OLAF opened an
investigation in order to identify Tillacks informant. After the investigation by OLAF failed to
unmask the official at the source of the leaks, the Belgian judicial authorities where requested to
open an investigation into an alleged breach of professional confidence and bribery involving a
civil servant. On 19 March 2004, Tillacks home and workplace were searched and almost all his
working papers and tools were seized and placed under seal.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. It emphasised in
particular that a journalists right not to reveal her or his sources could not be considered a mere
privilege to be granted or taken away depending on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their
sources, but was part and parcel of the right to information. It found the reasons given by the
Belgian courts to justify the searches insufficient.