It was ordered by the court in Amsterdam last month Algemeen Dagblad The imposed ban on publishing about leaked confidential recordings that Peter R. de Vries made as director of his law firm is a serious violation of the prohibition of censorship, freedom of the press and the principle of openness of justice.
This was stated by the lawyer General newspaper, Olaf Trojan, on Monday during a hearing before the court in Amsterdam. According to him, journalism is “being silenced in a way that has never been seen before. If the court’s decision is upheld, it will have far-reaching consequences for the way in which the press does its work.” A so-called turbo emergency appeal that the newspaper had filed against lawyer Royce de Vries and the Amsterdam Bar Association was submitted to the court.
In the first instance, the order and Royce de Vries enforced in the Amsterdam court that the newspaper is not allowed to continue publishing confidential tape recordings of Peter R. de Vries. A.D is also not allowed to say anything about the case. If the newspaper does this, a penalty of 100,000 euros must be paid per violation, with a maximum of one million euros, it became clear at the hearing today. According to attorney Trojan, the court not only prohibits it A.D to continue publishing, but this measure also applies to all other media from parent company DPG Media, such as, for example de Volkskrant and Fidelity.
Also read
Royce de Vries about his father’s threats
Bribe selection officer
It A.D revealed last month, based on recordings that Peter R. de Vries most likely made, that former lawyer and TV presenter Khalid Kasem would have wanted to bribe a so-called selection officer at the Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) with 8,000 euros in 2019 to release his client earlier. to get. New publications that A.D announced below were banned by the judge.
According to A.D-lawyer Trojan demands from Royce de Vries all the source material that the newspaper has collected. As a joined party, the Bar Association would initially have formulated the same far-reaching demand, but has since backtracked. Royce de Vries and the bar association believe that information from secret holders (such as a lawyer) should not be revealed. Trojan believes that “the obligation of confidentiality should not always prevail over freedom of the press.” It is the ‘own responsibility of the press to determine whether certain information fit to print is”. Only afterwards could it in principle be determined whether a publication is unlawful.
According to it, the bar association wants A.D and the Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ), which joined this case on appeal, muzzled the press. According to lawyer Cees Nierop of the NVJ it was A.D “on the trail of serious misconduct” by writing about a prominent presenter who, as a lawyer, may have acted criminally. In such a case it is not appropriate to say that information from a person entitled to refuse disclosure may never be made public.
Royce de Vries stated during the trial that he “didn’t want to hide anything.” He only wanted to protect “my father’s confidential information.” It bothers him that the professional association of journalists is interfering with this issue, “while the NVJ has never concerned itself with my father’s journalistic legacy.” The NVJ is said to have remained “deafeningly silent” after the murder of his father.
On Monday afternoon, the court continued behind closed doors with the substantive treatment of the issue: should it be submitted to the first instance A.D imposed publication ban to be maintained? It is not yet clear when the court will deliver its judgment.