The Luxembourg Press Council has strongly criticised a recent judicial verdict in the so-called “Nickts Case,” calling it a significant restriction on freedom of expression.
In a press release issued on Monday titled “The law forbids journalists from telling the truth,” the Council condemned the decision, arguing that it undermines the public’s right to information.
The controversy stems from a mid-December 2024 ruling by the Court of Appeal, which barred RTL from naming Jos Nickts in connection with a high-profile embezzlement case. Nickts was found guilty in 2007 of defrauding nearly 500 postal workers of nearly €14 million through the Luxembourg Postmen and Women’s Trade Union Federation (FSFL) joint investment fund. The court ruled that Nickts, having served his sentence, benefits from the “right to be forgotten” and that future references to the case should use the term “FSFL Case” instead of naming him.
The Press Council has rejected this decision, emphasising that it was Nickts – not the FSFL – who stood trial and was convicted. The Council announced its intention to support RTL Luxembourg in challenging the ruling through all available legal avenues, including potential appeals to national and European courts.
In its statement, the Press Council expressed deep concern over the implications of the verdict, stating that it prevents journalists from “telling the truth about one of the most high-profile embezzlement cases of the last 25 years.” The Council also criticised the court’s enforcement of the ban, which threatens RTL with a €7,000 fine if it identifies Nickts as the perpetrator.
The Luxembourg Press Council raised further concerns, warning that the court’s verdict – which applies to future scenarios as well – carries a clear risk of censorship. The Council emphasised that the Grand Duchy’s Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and press freedom, explicitly stating that “censorship cannot be established.” According to the Press Council, the court’s decision imposes a preventive measure by restricting future publications, effectively amounting to censorship.
The Council criticised the judges for failing to identify any offences committed by RTL in its reporting, arguing that the ruling unjustly limits journalistic freedom. It also noted that the court did not assess the constitutionality of its decision, further undermining the legal basis for the ban.
The Press Council expressed frustration that Luxembourg’s judicial authorities have “once again” prioritised other rights over freedom of expression. It highlighted that this pattern has led to Luxembourg being condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg five times in less than 25 years for violating Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression.
RTL Luxembourg does indeed intend to challenge the Court of Appeal’s verdict, first in the Court of Cassation and, if necessary, at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
