Date when decision was rendered: 6.5.1998

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 773; 2084/1/97

Reference to source

KHO 1998:13.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1998 I January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1998 I januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1998 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 85-90

Subject

freedom of expression, right to receive, seek and impart information, respect for private life,
yttrandefrihet, rätt att söka, mottaga och sprida upplysningar, respekt för privatliv,
ilmaisuvapaus, oikeus hankkia, vastaanottaa ja levittää tietoja, yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 4, 9 and 16 of the Act on the Publicity of Official Documents; section 43 of the Police Act; sections 8 and 10 of the Constitution Act

= lag om allmänna handlingars offentlighet 4 § 9 §, 16 §; polislag 43 §; regeringsformen 8 §, 10 §

= laki yleisten asiakirjain julkisuudesta 4 § 9 §, 16 §; poliisilaki 43 §; hallitusmuoto 8 §, 10 §.

ECHR-8

Abstract

The police refused to give a journalist access to documents concerning a pretrial investigation regarding criminal charges for a sexual offence.The journalist appealed to the county administrative court.With reference to section 4 of the Act on the Publicity of Official Documents, the county administrative court ruled that the material emanating from the pretrial investigation was to be considered as public since the pretrial investigation had been terminated and the case had been closed.The court also referred to section 10 of the Constitution Act, according to which documents in the possession of public authorities are public unless their publicity has been separately restricted by Act of Parliament for compelling reasons.

The police appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court.The Court based its argumentation on the right to privacy enshrined in section 8 of the Constitution Act and in Article 8 of the ECHR and considered this right against the background of the relevant provisions concerning the publicity of documents in the possession of a public authority.The Court referred to section 43 of the Police Act, according to which a policeman may not disclose information which he has obtained during the course of his duties when such information concerns a person's private life and its disclosure may cause the person harm.Furthermore, section 16 of the Act on the Publicity of Official Documents provides that documents pertaining to a confidential matter are also to be regarded as confidential.Therefore, the material from the pretrial investigation in this case should be considered as confidential documents as the restrictions to publicity were based on the law.

8.11.2002 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 2.3.2004

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 413; 2548/1/03

Reference to source

KHO 2004:25.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2004 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2004 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2004 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2008

Pages: pp. 197-202

Subject

freedom of expression, right to receive, seek and impart information, public access to documents,,
yttrandefrihet, rätt att söka, mottaga och sprida upplysningar, allmänna handlingars offentlighet,
ilmaisuvapaus, oikeus hankkia, vastaanottaa ja levittää tietoja, asiakirjojen julkisuus,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 3, 17, 24-1-1 and 24-2 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities; section 12 of the Constitution Act

= lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 3 §, 17 §, 24 § 1 mom. 1 punkten och 24 § 2 mom.; grundlagen 12 §

= laki viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta 3 §, 17 § 24 § 1 mom. 1 kohta ja 24 § 2 mom.; perustuslaki 12 §.

ECHR-10

Abstract

A journalist had requested from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs access to three documents.The Ministry refused with reference to the fact that the documents were coded messages in the field of foreign affairs administration and concerned political negotiations with a foreign state.They were therefore secret documents as prescribed in section 24-1-1 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities.

In his appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, the journalist referred, among other things, to the principle of proportionality in section 17 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities as well as to section 12 of the Constitution Act concerning freedom of expression and right of access to information.He also made a general reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning freedom of expression and the media.In the journalist's view, a limitation to a constitutional right had to be interpreted narrowly, in order to guarantee the widest possible implementation of access to information despite the limitations.He challenged the Ministry's decision to declare the entire documents as secret and pointed out that in fact parts of the documents had already been published in some newspapers.According to the Ministry, this had happened without the Ministry's consent.

The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal.It ruled that the requested documents as a whole were secret documents and that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs had the right to decide whether access is granted to these documents.In the Court's view, the fact that parts of the documents had been published in the media was irrelevant in this case.The Supreme Administrative Court based its decision on the Act on the Openness of Government Activities only and did not refer to the Constitution Act or any international human rights provisions.

25.4.2005 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 20.1.2005

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

Reference: Report no. 158; R02/3844

Reference to source

Registry of the Helsinki Court of Appeal

Helsingfors hovrätts registratorskontor

Helsingin hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

freedom of expression, respect for private life, right to receive, seek and impart information, limitations of rights and freedoms, lawyers,
yttrandefrihet, respekt för privatliv, rätt att söka, mottaga och sprida upplysningar, inskränkningar av friheter och rättigheter, jurister,
ilmaisuvapaus, yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, oikeus hankkia, vastaanottaa ja levittää tietoja, oikeuksien ja vapauksien rajoitukset, lakimiehet,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 24, section 9 of the Penal Code; sections 10 and 12 of the Constitution Act

= strafflagen 24 kapitel 9 §; grundlagen 10 § och 12 §

= rikoslaki 24 luku 9 §; perustuslaki 10 § ja 12 §.

ECHR-10

Abstract

In a radio programme, which was meant to serve as an open discussion forum for the public, radio journalists A and B had interviewed C who had expressed very critical views about the status and rights of the father in child custody cases, based on his own experiences.C's ex-wife D and her counsel in the custody case, E, sued A, B and C for defamation.

Taking into account the constitutional provisions on the right to freedom of expression and the protection of privacy as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 10 of the ECHR, the court of first instance convicted the defendants of defamation.In the court's view, the defendants had presented false insinuations in claiming that E had not observed proper professional conduct or the Advocates Act while counselling D in the custody case and that D was not capable of raising and caring for her children.The court ruled that C's views were value judgments rather than facts and that protecting D's and E's honour was in this case not in conflict with Article 10 of the ECHR.

The court of appeal did not agree with the first instance court.The court found it acceptable that a person who is being interviewed expresses his or her opinions in a sharp manner amounting to criticism.It could not be expected that a party in a child custody case also puts forth arguments which favour the adverse party, in particular when C's adverse party D had on previous occasions in a TV-programme and a newspaper interview criticised C and his actions in similar terms.Regarding C's views on E, the court of appeal held that in practising his profession E was expected to tolerate even sharp criticism, in particular when expressed by the adverse party of his client.C had presented his own, reasoned views about the proper professional conduct for advocates.In the radio programme, it was clearly stated that his views differed from those of the Finnish Bar Association.The court concluded that C's statements did not amount to defamation.Regarding D, the court pointed out that C's statements could not be assessed out of context and without taking into account the nature and tone of the interview as a whole.C had criticised the prevailing system of child custody cases in Finland.Some of his views corresponded to opinions and assumptions generally held by the public.These views could not as such amount to a violation of D's honour.The court held that C had expressed his strong, emotional and subjective opinion based on his own experiences without an express intention to insult D.Moreover, considering the nature of C's statements, it was difficult to assess whether they were true or false.The court ruled that it had not been shown that C would have violated D's honour.Regarding the radio journalists A and B, the court held, with reference to the case of Jersild v.Denmark (judgment of 23 September 1994, Publications of the European Court of Human Rights, Series A, no. 298), that the punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview is possible on extremely strong grounds only.In the radio programme, it had been made clear that these are C's personal opinions.In addition, it had been shown that the Finnish Bar Association did not share C's views and that D had already on previous occasions told in public that she found C's actions as offending her rights.Though A's and B's questions and comments had been slightly provocative, the court held that under the circumstances they did not amount to defamation.The decision is final.The Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal in the case (decision no. 1872 of 18 August 2005).

30.5.2006 / 30.5.2006 / RHANSKI