media
The Ghent Court of Appeal rules that the publication ban on information from the official report against former Vooruit chairman Conner Rousseau after possibly racist statements was not justified.
The East Flanders public prosecutor’s office confirmed on September 21 that an investigation was being conducted into statements made by Conner Rousseau to officers in Sint-Niklaas in the night of September 1 to 2. Het Laatste Nieuws and VTM Nieuws had prepared an article and a report with passages from the official report drawn up against Rousseau. When asked for a response, Rousseau went to court for summary proceedings and obtained a publication ban via a unilateral petition on September 28.
DPG Media (parent company of Het Laatste Nieuws and VTM Nieuws) subsequently filed a third-party objection, the main argument being that there is a ban on censorship in our country. The court of first instance Dendermonde did not follow their lead and confirmed the decision on a unilateral petition. DPG Media then decided to appeal.
The Ghent Court of Appeal now annuls the decision of the summary proceedings judge in Dendermonde, declaring DPG Media’s third-party objection well-founded. Rousseau is ordered to pay legal compensation to DPG Media and the Flemish Association of Journalists (VVJ) of 3,600 euros each and to pay 400 euros in docket fees on appeal.
“The page has been turned for us”
Rousseau will not lodge an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Ghent Court of Appeal. “Other judges first ruled twice that the rights of the defense and the secrecy of the investigation were more important than the scoops of the press, but the court of appeal now rules differently,” says his lawyer Simon Bekaert.
“It is indeed a matter of balancing fundamental rights, but we stated soon after interrogating our client that we would not pursue the publication ban any further. The page has been turned for us. From a purely legal point of view, we would have a chance in cassation, but today we no longer see the importance of it.”
The VVJ views the judgment as a “booster for press freedom and court reporting in our country,” the VVJ says on X.
