54 - So hat der EGMR, Urteile vom 27. März 1996, Goodwin (28957/95, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-II, § 39), und vom 27. November 2007, Tillack (20477/05, § 53), den Schutz der Pressefreiheit ausdrücklich auf den journalistischen Quellenschutz erstreckt.

As in Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 100, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 64, 27 November 2007; and Sanoma, loc.

Closer to the facts of the present case, the Court has consistently accepted, in a phrase repeated many times since its first use in Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II, that an order leading to the disclosure of a journalistic source may be compatible with Article 10 if - but only if - it is justified by an "overriding requirement in the public interest" (see Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003 IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 91, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 53, 27 November 2007; Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 65, 22 November 2007; Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 51, 14 September 2010.