May a journalist share your personal data for a news article?

In the digital age, the protection of personal data is a fundamental right. However, what happens when this right clashes with the freedom of the press? A ruling of the Antwerp Court of Appeal of 12 March 2025 creates clarity: a journalist can process and even share personal data under strict conditions, when this is necessary for the control of information of great public interest.

The facts: a data breach, a journalist and a mayor

The case involved a journalist who was prosecuted for unlawfully processing personal data . The journalist had received a screenshot containing the personal and vaccination data of the mayor of Sint-Truiden. In order to verify the authenticity of this document and the meaning of certain codes, he forwarded the screenshot to a single expert: a coordinating pharmacist with the necessary expertise . As a result of this forwarding, the journalist was criminally prosecuted.

Appeal court decision

Unlike the first judge, the Antwerp Court of Appeals ruled that the journalist was not guilty and acquitted him. The court found that the journalist acted with a clear journalistic purpose: to verify the authenticity of his source and to correctly interpret the information before sharing it with the public.

The court ruled that the journalist could rely on the exception for journalistic purposes, as provided for in the Belgian Personal Data Processing Act. According to the court, forwarding the data to an expert was "minimal and proportionate" and aimed solely at "journalistic information control and information provision" .

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling illustrates the delicate balancing act between two fundamental rights: the right to privacy (embedded in the GDPR, among others) and the freedom of speech and information (Article 10 ECHR). The Belgian legislature tried to strike this balance in the personal data processing act of 30 July 2018. Article 24 of the law provides a specific exception for the processing of personal data for journalistic purposes.

The court of appeals applies this exception very specifically in this ruling. It performs a balancing of interests and finds that the public interest of the news item weighed heavily . The context - a global pandemic, a national vaccination campaign and the involvement of a public figure - made journalistic scrutiny necessary and justified the limited invasion of privacy. The crux of the reasoning is that the data processing was strictly necessary to ensure the accuracy of the information, which is a cornerstone of journalistic deontology.

What this specifically means

• For journalists: This ruling is an important confirmation that freedom of the press also protects the necessary steps of research and verification. However, journalists must always be able to demonstrate that the processing of personal data is proportionate and serves a legitimate journalistic purpose. This obviously does not include the arbitrary dissemination of personal data.
• For public figures: While everyone has a right to privacy, this right is not absolute. When you hold public office, the public interest in certain information may outweigh your personal privacy interest, especially if the information is relevant to your public role.
• For citizens: Your personal data is and will remain highly protected. This ruling does not give carte blanche to share personal data indiscriminately. The exception applies only to persons acting with a clear journalistic purpose and abiding by the deontological rules of the sector .

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

What exactly does the journalistic exception in the Belgian Personal Data Processing Act mean?
The journalistic exception allows journalists to collect, process and publish personal data for the purpose of informing the public. This exception is not unlimited; the processing must be necessary and proportionate to the intended informational purpose.

Shouldn't the journalist in this case have anonymized the data?
No, in this particular case the court ruled that forwarding the original, unanonymized screenshot was essential . The expert had to be able to verify the authenticity of the document itself, which would have been impossible with incomplete or anonymized data .

Is everyone who publishes something online now a journalist?
No, absolutely not. The court emphasized that the defendant is a licensed journalist who is expected to observe journalistic deontological rules . The exception is intended for those whose goal is to inform the public and who maintain a certain professional standard in doing so.

Conclusion

The Antwerp Court of Appeal has sent a clear signal with this ruling: the crucial role of journalism as a "watchdog of democracy" is legally recognized and protected. The duty to thoroughly verify information before publishing is essential and, under strict conditions, justifies limited processing of personal data, even if sensitive.