Court has decided: 24ora.com told no lies and Endy Croes has lost his case

Yesterday morning, the court delivered a verdict in the case that Endy Croes (minister in the Wever-Croes II Cabinet) initiated against Tera News (Headlines Group) of the largest news platform in Aruba, 24ora.com. The court rejected the request for a retraction.

Croes started the case because when a publication on 24ora.com stated that he was a suspect and that he favored his family, he felt that his name had been tarnished.

In making a decision, the question the judge had to answer was whether the expressions made on 24ora.com against Croes were “unlawful.” In this matter, the judge stated that there are two rights that clash: the right to freedom of expression of the Headlines Group and its employees, and Croes’s right “to protection of his reputation.” Neither outweighs the other, according to the judge. However, the circumstances surrounding the case play a significant role.

One of the questions is whether the statements made contribute to a debate of general interest. If that is the case, there is more room to give weight to the freedom of expression. There must be compelling reasons to limit this freedom because a critical and public debate is necessary for a democratic community.

In this case, the expression comes from the press, which serves as the watchdog of a community. The way the press presents information, given the nature of the community, allows for exaggeration and sometimes even a provocative form. If accusations are made, the information must be reliable.

Although the discussion involves a technicality where the initial judgment did not go to the “Hof” or “Hoge Raad”, the judge says this does not mean that the publication on 24ora.com is “unlawful.” The judge stated that although 24ora.com wrote “Hoge Raad” instead of “herzieningsprocedure,” this does not make the article unlawful. The judge noted that although the publication’s legal terminology was incorrect, it cannot be said to be inaccurate or unjust.

Therefore, there is no reason for a retraction, and Endy Croes must pay all the costs of the proceedings.