This month, Scheldt published an article about a visit to the restaurant that Egbert Laschert had with a young woman. According to the site, it was an appointment. Paparazzi-esque photos of the two appeared on the table with the article.
Scheldt had been critical of Laschert for some time, but this time the party chief thought that his privacy and that of his table companion had been violated and went to the summary judge. The court ruled that Lascher could not demonstrate the urgency required for these initial relief measures. The court does not rule on any breach of privacy.
Scheldt can leave the articles and the court also denied Laschart’s request to ban future articles about his private life. The urgency for this has not been demonstrated either, but the judge is also asking himself whether “such a general precautionary ban could be”.
‘Preventive censorship is dangerous’
“He wanted preemptive oversight and that’s a serious question, coming from a politician and party leader,” says Frank Scherlink, Gert van Mol’s attorney in this case. Van Mol was called as representative of ‘t Scheldt, Although he has always denied being behind the scene until now.
Meanwhile, Van Mull filed a complaint against Lachert for breach of professional secrecy. The roots of this lie in an old case.
For more than 10 years, Laschert worked as a lawyer for The Wall Street Journal, with whom Van Mol got into a career dispute. Laschart mentioned in his summons that this was the reason why he targeted Scheldt. According to Van Mol, Laschert is violating his professional secrets as a lawyer. This case will be presented to the criminal court in January. Lashart declined to comment.
The same summary judge now ruling in ‘t Scheldt’s favour ruled in June that the site I had to remove the defamatory articles about Zilfa Mazloum, Open Vld spokesperson. Subsequently, the judge himself was the subject of an essay on ‘t Scheldt.
