As it stands it sounds like Joost Klein has admited whatever it is he is accused of, but the Dutch Broadcasters all think it was next to nothing.
Swedish Police think its a clear cut case with the evidence (a confession and possibly video footage) and because its not a serious charge have fast tracked it (suggests he did not hit anyone). And that there is a good chance the prosecutors will be able to go ahead with a case.
This does not necessarily mean that Joost Klein is guilty. Given the nature of everything else coming out, I think theres fair grounds for a defence here. Especially if he did have a contract stating he should not be filmed.
The EBU statement said:
"We regret some delegations at the Eurovision Song Concest (ESC) in Malmo didnt respect the spirt of the rules and the competition both onsite and during their broadcasts.
Well we know that the Netherlands broke the rules after their disqualification during their final broadcast.
We also know that the Belgiums put up and anti-genocide statement during theirs. Twice
And that Bambi Thug complained about Israel's broadcast having broken the rules, and says they were told that KAN had broken the rules only for the EBU to put out a statement that said exactly the opposite.
This also talking about behaviour onsite. Joost Klein is a given but we also have seen multiple incidents of harassment and taking photos without consent.
This is the law in Sweden:
Also, with a new law you are not allowed to take pictures concealed without consent if it is an area private to the subject (e.g. home) or an area intended to be private (e.g. restroom, showers). Publishing a picture of a person is generally allowed, as long as no abuse of personal integrity is involved. Within a journalistic framework (in a publication with a publisher accusable by law) even more freedom is allowed. Use of a picture of a person will require consent if used in marketing or in advertising, other commercial uses might not require consent.
There is an interesting point here going forward to 2025.
Switzerland has some of the strictest laws on taking photos of one or more identifable person in a public place without consent.
This includes taking ANY picture not just for publication or use on social media. This issue can't be repeated next year or there are criminal liabilities.
This is the law in Switzerland:
Swiss civil law contains a general clause for protection of personality rights, which may be restricted only with the consent of the person affected. This applies to the right to the own image, even if a picture is taken in a public space. In principle, any unauthorized picture which aims to depict the person as such is considered an infringement of personality rights (according to the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Court). Therefore, just taking a person's photograph is an offensive act and consent must be obtained from any person recognizably depicted as an individual, unless their appearance is merely accidental and has nothing to do with the purpose of the image. Consent can be given expressly (either written or verbal) or implied through actions. It is generally recognized by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied for pictures of public figures, at least when performing their public functions or activities (not necessarily also in private situations). Consent is also implied for people consciously and voluntarily exposed to the public in some kind of public event. As an exception, predominant and mostly public interests (e. g. public information, science) will allow an unauthorized picture to be admitted.
I have to say, that its interesting to see the Swiss amongst those having issues with photos in Malmo within the context of the above.