Zurich High Court fines journalist for quoting secret minutes
The Zurich High Court has convicted a journalist from the NZZ am Sonntag for quoting from confidential minutes of the subcommittee of the National Council’s Control Committee. The court thereby upheld the lower court’s guilty verdict.
In April 2009, the journalist reported in the NZZ am Sonntag under the title "Schelte für den Bundesanwalt" (Scolding for the Attorney General) on the dispute between the then Minister of Justice Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf and Attorney General Erwin Beyeler. He quoted statements made by the Federal Councillor to the subcommittee of the National Council's Control Committee responsible for her department.
Serious breach of secrecy
On the agenda at the time was an expert report on the use of resources by the federal criminal authorities. According to the minutes quoted in the NZZ am Sonntag, Widmer-Schlumpf is said to have said that she and Beyeler "kept having arguments because we don't understand leadership in the same way".
In its ruling published by the NZZ and Tages-Anzeiger on Monday, the High Court assessed the report in the NZZ am Sonntag as a "serious breach of confidentiality". It concerned a "very sensitive topic of some political explosiveness" and was likely to "unnecessarily strain" the relationship between the Federal Councillor and the Attorney General.
The privacy protected by law should make it possible to express oneself "freely and impartially". Participants in meetings should be protected from having to justify their statements in public at a later date. In principle, non-public meetings also serve to ensure the efficiency and relevance of the work of Parliament and the Federal Council.
Damage for conflict resolution
The potential for damage did not lie in the publication of the already known leadership conflict, but in the revelation by Federal Councillor Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf of the Federal Prosecutor's personal assessment, which was not intended for the public and was reproduced verbatim. The publication was therefore capable of causing considerable damage to the state's interest in a factual investigation of the conflict.
The defense had demanded an acquittal and pointed out that the article had not brought anything fundamentally new to the table. The High Court did not accept this as justification. Rather, the accredited Federal Parliament journalist had "undoubtedly known" about the confidentiality of the committee minutes.
The High Court fined the journalist 400 francs for publishing official secret negotiations. It thus confirmed the judgment of the lower court. The journalist has lodged an appeal against the decision with the Federal Supreme Court. (SDA)
