Facts
In an article in the Basler Zeitung, a journalist ([X.] ) described a visit to a drug dealer ("Roland") and provided detailed information about his activities. Based on this article, the Public Prosecutor's Office of Basel-Stadt initiated criminal proceedings against an unknown person for qualified violation of the Narcotics Act. The Public Prosecutor's Office ruled that [X.] had no right to refuse to testify in the proceedings. [X.] successfully appealed this decision to the Basel-Stadt Court of Appeal, which granted her the right to refuse to testify. The Public Prosecutor's Office appealed this decision to the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and found that [X.] had no right to refuse to testify in the present criminal proceedings. While the freedom of the media generally guarantees the protection of journalists' sources, this protection is not absolute and can be restricted if the public interest in criminal prosecution outweighs it. In the present case, the criminal proceedings concern a qualified violation of the Narcotics Act, which the legislator has classified as serious and included in the catalogue of exceptions in which the right to refuse to testify can be restricted. Although the specific case is less…