Stichting Ostade Blade is a foundation based in Amsterdam and was the publisher of the activist magazine Ravage, which ceased publication in 2005. After three bomb attacks on a branch of the chemical company BASF between 1995 and 1996, the magazine’s editors issued a press release in which they announced that the magazine had received a letter from the organization claiming responsibility for the bombings. The editors also said that the list of those responsible for the attack, belonging to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), would be included in the upcoming issue of the magazine.

A search of the magazine’s premises took place the day after the editors' announcement, after an investigating judge granted a search warrant and informed the magazine’s editors that the authorities were in search of ELF’s letter. The editors stated that the letter was not present on the premises, but the search went ahead. The police, supervised by the investigating judge, took several computers and other material. The seized computers and other items were returned to the magazine three days later, and the editors subsequently explained that the letter had been destroyed on the day of its receipt.

The foundation and one of the editors lodged a claim for compensation with the Dutch courts. The lower court dismissed the claim, but in September 2007 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal found a partial violation on the foundation’s rights under Articles 8 (right to privacy) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, regarding the part of the search that attempted to establish links between the organization that had claimed responsibility for the bomb attack and the magazine. However, the court dismissed the claims for compensation.

The foundation lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, in which it alleged a violation of Article 10, regarding the protection of journalistic sources.

Chilling effect on journalistic freedom

In its decision in May 2014, the court held that the order to hand over the letter, which was followed by a search of the applicant foundation’s premises when the order had not been obeyed, had constituted an interference with the foundation’s right to "receive and impart information," as set out in Article 10 of the Convention. In assessing the proportionality of the interference, the court noted that according to the relevant case law, the press acted as "public watchdog" and individuals who disclosed information to the press should be protected.

According to the court precedent, the search of the magazine’s premises, which could potentially lead to the disclosure of the sources of information, was certainly contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, among others, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v the Netherlands). This could have a chilling effect on the exercise of journalistic freedom of expression. It does not follow, however, that every individual who is used by a journalist for information is a "source" in the legal sense of the word. The court noted that in the present case the magazine’s informant had not been motivated by the desire to provide information that the public should be entitled to know. On the contrary, his purpose in seeking publicity through the magazine was to assume anonymity in order to evade his own criminal accountability.

Considering this, the court took the view that he had not been, in principle, entitled to the same protection as sources in the traditional sense. Thus, the standards arising from the mentioned case law could not be applied. In addition, the foundation was not able to show how the search had destroyed the confidentiality of information entrusted to the magazine’s editors. For these reasons, the court declared the application inadmissible.