Date when decision was rendered: 4.6.1997

Judicial body: Helsinki Court of Appeal = Helsingfors hovrätt = Helsingin hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 2061; R96/1572

Reference to source

Registry of the Helsinki Court of Appeal

Helsingfors hovrätts registratorskontor

Helsingin hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

respect for private life, communication, respect for correspondence, freedom of expression, limitations of rights and freedoms,
respekt för privatliv, kommunikation, respekt för korrespondens, yttrandefrihet, inskränkningar av friheter och rättigheter,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, viestintä, kirjeenvaihdon kunnioittaminen, ilmaisuvapaus, oikeuksien ja vapauksien rajoitukset,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 8 of the Constitution Act; sections 27 and 28 of the Criminal Investigations Act

= regeringsformen 8 §; förundersökningslagen 27 § och 28 §

= hallitusmuoto 8 §; esitutkintalaki 27 § ja 28 §.

ECHR-8, ECHR-10

Abstract

The police was investigating an alleged copyright offence in which an unidentified person had sent e-mail messages infringing copyrights to Internet newsgroups through an anonymous server run by a Finnish company.A, the managing director and owner of the company, was heard as a witness during the pretrial investigation of the case.The police demanded that A hand over to the police the sender's e-mail address which had been recorded in the anonymous server's database.A referred to the confidentiality of the message and refused.On the application of the police, the court of first instance made a decision obligating A to reveal the e-mail address.A appealed against the decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal referring to section 8 of the Constitution Act and to the protection of the confidentiality of a message.The court of appeal noted that the protection of the confidentiality of a message, as prescribed in section 8 of the Constitution Act, covers not only the contents of the message but also other information which is relevant with regard to the confidentiality of the message, such as the name and address of the sender or the receiver.However, in this case the messages were sent to newsgroups in a public Internet network and were thus public.The fact that the messages were sent through an anonymous server was not relevant.The court of appeal concluded that A could not refuse to reveal the e-mail address on the basis of section 8 of the Constitution Act and that there were no other legal grounds for such refusal either.The court further referred to Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR and noted that the rights protected by these articles may be subject to restrictions which are prescribed by law and necessary, for example, for the purposes of crime investigation.A was obligated to reveal the requested information.The Supreme Court refused A leave to appeal.

1.4.1998 / 30.5.2006 / RHANSKI