ECHR and Luxembourg: significant cases that have changed the legal landscape of the country

Raphael Halet, a former employee of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in Luxembourg, was convicted of passing confidential tax documents to a journalist that revealed lucrative tax schemes for large corporations. 

This information attracted public attention and sparked a debate on tax transparency and tax justice. The ECHR found that Halet's conviction violated his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, emphasising that the public importance of the information outweighed the requirements of professional secrecy.

The case of Schneider v. Luxembourg dealt with the conflict between property rights and the right to freedom of association with personal ethical beliefs. Catherine Schneider, a Luxembourg national who strongly opposed hunting on ethical grounds, challenged the inclusion of her property in a hunting syndicate under a 1925 law. Schneider argued that compulsory membership violated her property rights and freedom of association, citing the ECHR's precedent decision in Chassagneux v. France, which recognised the validity of refusing compulsory membership in hunting associations on the basis of ethical objections.

The ECHR ruled that forced membership violated Schneider's rights because it deprived her of the ability to freely dispose of her property and was contrary to her moral convictions. The Court noted that the voting system, which allowed her to theoretically withdraw from the syndicate, was in fact unrealisable due to the need for a majority vote, and the compensation offered (€3.25 per year) was not adequate in view of her ethical objection. As a result, the ECHR concluded that the hunting syndicate system in Luxembourg imposed an undue burden on owners by failing to provide sufficient mechanisms to protect individual rights on the basis of ethical objections.

In Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) considered a complaint for violation of freedom of expression (Article 10) and the right to inviolability of the home (Article 8) following a search of the editorial offices of Contacto Semanário, a Portuguese-language newspaper published by Saint-Paul. The search was initiated in response to the publication of an article referring to social workers and situations involving minors, which aroused suspicion and led to a libel complaint.

The ECHR recognised that the police actions violated the right to confidentiality and freedom of the press, stressing that the protection of sources is at the core of journalistic activity. The Court stated that measures such as a search involving the installation of a USB device on a journalist's computer were disproportionate and could have discouraged sources from co-operating with the media. This case emphasises that in investigations involving the press, a balance must be struck between the public interest and the protection of the rights of the media as a 'public watchdog' which must remain independent and protected.