View source for I-SHO - I-SHO:2024:5

{{COURTdecisionBOX

|Jurisdiction=Finland
|Court-BG-Color=
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png
|Court_Abbrevation=I-SHO
|Court_Original_Name=Itä-Suomen Hovioikeus
|Court_English_Name=Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland
|Court_With_Country=I-SHO (Finland)

|Case_Number_Name=I-SHO:2024:5
|ECLI=

|Original_Source_Name_1=Tuomioistuinlaitos
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://oikeus.fi/hovioikeudet/ita-suomenhovioikeus/fi/index/hovioikeudenratkaisuja/i-sho20245.html
|Original_Source_Language_1=Finnish
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=FI
|Original_Source_Name_2=
|Original_Source_Link_2=
|Original_Source_Language_2=
|Original_Source_Language__Code_2=

|Date_Decided=03.06.2024
|Date_Published=
|Year=2024

|GDPR_Article_1=Article 85(1) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 85 GDPR#1
|GDPR_Article_2=Article 85(2) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 85 GDPR#2
|GDPR_Article_3=
|GDPR_Article_Link_3=
|GDPR_Article_4=
|GDPR_Article_Link_4=

|EU_Law_Name_1=
|EU_Law_Link_1=
|EU_Law_Name_2=
|EU_Law_Link_2=

|National_Law_Name_1=Julkisuuslaki (621/1999) 1 §
|National_Law_Link_1=https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990621
|National_Law_Name_2=Julkisuuslaki (621/1999) 16 § 3
|National_Law_Link_2=https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990621
|National_Law_Name_3=Oikeudenkäynnin Julkisuuslaki (370/2007)
|National_Law_Link_3=https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2007/20070370
|National_Law_Name_4=Tietosuojalaki (1050/2018) 27 §
|National_Law_Link_4=https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2018/20181050
|National_Law_Name_5=
|National_Law_Link_5=
|National_Law_Name_6=
|National_Law_Link_6=

|Party_Name_1=A
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Name_2=Kymenlaakson Käräjäoikeus
|Party_Link_2=
|Party_Name_3=
|Party_Link_3=
|Party_Name_4=
|Party_Link_4=

|Appeal_From_Body=Kymenlaakson käräjäoikeus
|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_From_Status=
|Appeal_From_Link=
|Appeal_To_Body=
|Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_To_Status=Not appealed
|Appeal_To_Link=

|Initial_Contributor=
|
}}

A District Court declined to automatically provide all case lists and public decision summaries for an individual. The request was made for journalistic purposes, as the individual was publishing a webpage. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

== English Summary ==

=== Facts ===
Person A requested the District Court of Kymeenlaakso to provide all case lists and public decision summaries that are not published on the court's website. A intended to use this information to create content for his website. He also stated that he studies court decisions for academic purposes, specifically to assess whether the decisions are consistent and the reasoning behind them is understandable.

The District Court of Kymeenlaakso declined the request to provide the information.

According to the Oikeudenkäynnin julkisuuslaki, everyone has the right to access public court documents. The court is responsible for publishing case lists prior to hearings, and if a case is declared classified, the court is required to produce a public summary of the case. Julkisuuslaki 1 § explicitly states that documents produced by authorities are public unless specific laws make them confidential.

Julkisuuslaki 16 § limits the disclosure of personal information, even when the document itself is not classified. The recipient must have the right to process such personal data. According to GDPR (85), member states must balance freedom of speech and freedom of information with protection of personal data in their national legislation. Finland's Julkisuuslaki allows journalists to access personal information for journalistic purposes.

The requested documents contain personal information, such as the names of defendants. According to the District Court’s reasoning, publishing on a private website does not qualify as journalistic activity that would justify the provision of personal data. The purpose of journalism is to collect, analyze, and clarify information. Journalism should enable public discourse, not merely satisfy individual curiosity. Additionally, journalism should increase transparency and public trust in the court system.

The District Court further noted that private publishing activities are not regulated by the same laws and authorities as traditional media companies.

In conclusion, the District Court of Kymeenlaakso determined that A does not have a journalistic basis to process personal information and declined the request to provide the documents on a regular basis.

Person A appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland.

=== Holding ===
The Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland accepts the decision and reasoning of the District Court of Kymeenlaakso regarding the refusal to provide the case lists. The only correction made by the Court of Appeal was that the definition of journalistic purpose does not require an increase in public trust in the court system.

Regarding the public summaries of the cases, the Court of Appeal notes that they usually do not contain personal information as defined in GDPR Article 4(1). Therefore, Section Julkisuuslaki  16 cannot be used as a basis for refusing to provide that information. However, there were other reasons unrelated to privacy that could justify declining the request.

== Comment ==
In this case, there were other issues unrelated to GDPR and privacy, such as which Court of Appeal should handle the case. Those ones are not included in the summary.

== Further Resources ==
''Share blogs or news articles here!''

== English Machine Translation of the Decision ==
The decision below is a machine translation of the Finnish original. Please refer to the Finnish original for more details.

<pre>
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
KEY CONTENTS OF THE DECISION The district court had rejected A's application, in which A had requested that the district court provide him with all case lists of oral hearings in criminal cases as well as public reports prepared on the decisions of the district court, if the district court has not published them on its own website. A primarily demanded that the appeal guidance given by the district court be changed so that the district court's decision can be appealed by appealing to the administrative court. Since the law on the publicity of proceedings in general courts had to be applied to A's request for documents, the appeal guidance given by the district court was correct and the court of appeal was competent to examine the appeal. KYMENLAAKSON DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION 8 February 2024 CaseCase lists and public reports A has sent an application to the office email of the Kymenlaakso District Court [email protected] on 22 January 2024, in which he requests that the district court provide him with all case lists of oral hearings in criminal cases and public reports prepared from the district court's decisions in the future, if the district court has not published them on its own on his website. A has announced that he will use the information to produce and publish materials on his own website. In addition, A has announced that he will monitor the uniformity of judgments in some case groups and that he will examine the comprehensibility of the judgments' justifications. He has stated that his purpose of use is journalistic. District court's decision The district court rejects the application. Reasons for the decision Applicable statutes and their preliminary works According to Section 1 of the Publicity of Trials in General Courts Act, later the Publicity of Trials Act (370/2007), trial documents are public, unless otherwise provided for in the aforementioned or another law. According to section 3 subsection 1 section 5 of the Publicity Act, a legal document refers to a document referred to in section 5 subsections 1 and 2 of the Act on the Publicity of Official Activities, which has been submitted to a court or drawn up in a court for a trial; however, court documents are not notes or drafts prepared in court or other such documents that the drafter has not yet provided for presentation or other handling of the case. According to Section 7 of the Law on the Publicity of Legal Proceedings, everyone has the right to receive information about a public legal document. Section 7 of the Act provides for the public release of court documents. According to § 13 of the law, the manner of issuing court documents is regulated in § 16 of the Act on the Publicity of the Authority's Activities. § 14, subsection 3 of the Law on the Publicity of Legal Proceedings provides for the court's obligation to announce the oral hearing with a case list at the latest when the session begins. Section 25 of the law provides for the court's obligation to prepare a public statement of the decision ordered to be kept secret. According to section 1, subsection 1 of the Act on the Publicity of Public Authorities' Activities, later the Publicity Act (621/1999), the documents of the authorities are public, unless the said or another law separately provides otherwise .According to Section 3 of the Publicity Act, the purpose of the right to access information and the duties of the authorities stipulated in the said law is to implement transparency and good information management in the activities of the authorities and to give individuals and communities the opportunity to control the use of public power and public funds, freely form their opinions and influence the use of public power and control their rights and interests. .According to Section 5, subsection 2 of the Publicity Act, an authority document means a document in the authority's possession, which has been prepared by the authority or its employee, or which has been delivered to the authority for the purpose of handling the case or otherwise in a matter that falls within its field or tasks. According to Section 9, subsection 1 of the Publicity Act everyone has the right to receive information about an official document that is public. According to section 13 subsection 2 of the Publicity Act, when requesting information about a confidential document or the authority's personal register or other document from which the information can only be released under certain conditions, the person requesting the information must, unless specifically stipulated otherwise, state the purpose of use of the data as well as other matters necessary to clarify the conditions for the release of the data and, if necessary, information on how data protection is to be organized. According to § 16 subsection 1 of the Public Service Act, information about the content of the authority's document must be given orally or by giving the document to be seen and copied or listened to at the authority's place, or by giving a copy or printout thereof. Information about the public content of the document must be provided as requested, unless complying with the request causes undue harm to official activities due to the large number of documents or the difficulty of copying the document or other comparable reasons. Pursuant to section 3, a copy or printout of the authority's personal register containing personal data or its information may be given in electronic form, unless the law specifically provides otherwise, if the transferee has the right to store and use such personal data according to the regulations on the protection of personal data. According to section 17, subsection 1 of the Public Service Act When making decisions in accordance with this Act and otherwise performing its duties, the authority is obliged to ensure that, taking into account Sections 1 and 3 of the Act, the obtaining of information about the activities of the authorities is not restricted without a factual and statutory basis and no more than is necessary for the interests of the person to be protected, and that information requesters are treated equitably. In the government's presentation on the Publicity Act (HE 30/1998 vp), it is stated in the detailed justifications for § 16 subsection 3 of the Publicity Act that the subsection contains a special provision on the release of personal data and that the purpose of the regulation is to prevent the disclosure of personal data leading to record-keeping or other for data processing. Furthermore, in the government's proposal, it is stated that the media have the right to keep editorial registers according to the Personal Register Act, which means that the media could be given permission to access public personal data also in the form of a technical recording or in another mass printout. According to section 27 subsection 1 of the Data Protection Act (1050/2018), freedom of speech and in order to protect the freedom of communication, the processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes or for the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression does not apply to Article 5(1)(c-e), Article 6 and 7, Article 9 and 10, Article 11 2 of the European Union Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) paragraph, Articles 12-22, Article 30, Article 34 paragraphs 1-3, Articles 35 and 36, Article 56, Article 58 paragraph 2 subparagraph f, Articles 60-63 and Articles 65-67. the main rule, the deviation from which is based on the law. Publicity is a key basic and human right and its purpose is to increase transparency and trust in the operation of the courts. The General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act limit who has the right to process documents containing personal data and how personal data should be processed. Data protection regulations apply to all personal data, including public data. The purpose of the Data Protection Regulation is to minimize the harm caused to data subjects by improper processing of personal data. A has requested lists of articles to produce material for his own website. He has stated that the basis for processing the information he requested is the journalistic purpose of use and has asked the district court to hand over the material by email. The district court's case lists contain the names of parties other than the interested parties as required by law. The lists of cases in their entirety are public documents of the authority. Since the question is about providing personal data from the authority's personal register, the condition for providing the information electronically, as a copy or as a printout is, however, in accordance with section 16 subsection 3 of the Publicity Act, that the appellant has the right to store and use the requested information based on the provisions on the protection of personal data. the publishing activity carried out on his website such conditions of journalistic activity, on the basis of which information can be disclosed to him on the basis of Section 27 of the Data Protection Act. The journalistic purpose of use is not always unambiguously interpretable. The starting point, however, is that the journalistic purpose of information requests must be interpreted broadly. The task of journalism is to collect, verify and break down information presented through the media. Journalism is characterized by the fact that the journalist has edited, analyzed and clarified the information he has collected. One point of view in evaluating the journalistic purpose is the extent to which publishing activities promote socially interesting discussion and when its purpose is more to satisfy the curiosity of individuals. The Act on using freedom of speech in mass communication (460/2003) regulates the use of freedom of speech protected in the constitution in mass communication. According to § 3 of the law, it is applied to publishing and programming activities carried out in Finland. When a private person maintains the homepage of an electronic communication network, only §§ 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22 and 24 of the law apply to him. In this case, the responsibilities and obligations stipulated in Chapters 2 and 3 of the law do not apply. There are no similar requirements for online publishing by private individuals (citizen journalism) as for mass communication referred to in the law. A private person does not have to follow the ethical guidelines of journalists in their publishing activities, nor does the Public Word Council control their publishing activities. Conclusions A has not demonstrated a credible explanation of the journalistic purpose referred to in the Data Protection Act as the basis for its request. Publishing alone is not a sufficient condition for fulfilling the journalistic purpose of use. A's publishing activities do not increase transparency and trust in the operation of the courts as intended by the law. A does not have a journalistic basis for processing personal data according to Section 27 of the Data Protection Act. Thus, the district court will not hand over case lists to A. Public reports The Kymenlaakso district court publishes public reports on its website.- - - - - - - - - - --Member of the district court that decided the case: Laamanni Markku Almgrén DECISION OF THE EASTERN FINLAND COURT OF APPEALS June 3, 2024 Claims in the court of appeals A has primarily demanded that the appeal guidance given by the district court is changed so that the decision of the district court can be appealed by appealing to the administrative court. Alternatively, A has demanded that the district court's decision be annulled and that the Kymenlaakso district court be obliged to give him the information he requested, at least mainly. A has also demanded reimbursement of his court costs in the case for 44 euros with interest. A has a journalistic purpose for the requested information. The Supreme Court has accepted his request for information for journalistic purposes. He complies with the legislation in force to the best of his knowledge. Permit for further proceedings The Court of Appeal grants permission for further proceedings to A. Decision of the Court of Appeal Reasons Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal According to section 33, subsection 4 of the Act on the Publicity of the Activities of Authorities, to an appeal in a case concerning the publicity of the proceedings, what is applied in the Act on the Publicity of the Proceedings in General Courts and the the law on publicity in administrative courts provides. According to section 2 subsection 1 of the law on publicity of proceedings in general courts, this law provides for the publicity of proceedings and trial documents in the national court, the supreme court, the court of appeals, the district court, the labor court and the military court. According to section 28, subsection 1 of the same law, a decision under this law is made upon request or if the court deems it necessary to make a decision or if a third party requests information about the content of the court document. According to section 33, subsection 1 of the law, a decision made by a court pursuant to this law may be separately appealed by appealing in the same order as the decision made by the relevant court in the main case. It appears from the provisions of the law that the solutions according to the mentioned law are, in accordance with the rules, judicial decisions. All decisions made by the court based on the mentioned law can be appealed by filing a separate appeal. The appeal route would follow the appeal route of the main case. Thus, the appeal path in general courts would normally go first to the Court of Appeal and from there to the Supreme Court. (HE 13/2006 vp, pp. 69, 77 and 78) The definition of a trial document in accordance with Section 3, Subsection 1, Section 5 of the Act on the Publicity of Trial Proceedings in General Courts and the content of the provisions of Section 14 regarding lists of cases and Section 25 regarding public reports have been explained in the district court's decision. According to the provisions of the law on the definition of a court document, a court document means in the said law a document related to a certain individual trial, delivered to the court or drawn up there. On the other hand, the documents created and accumulated in other activities of the court, such as its administration, would not be court documents and thus the said law would not apply to them. (HE 13/2006 vp, pp. 28 and 29) A has asked the district court to send him both case lists and public statements of criminal cases by e-mail. Both types of documents deal with documents related to a specific individual trial drawn up in the court, which must be considered as trial documents within the meaning of the Act on the Publicity of Trials in General Courts, and which the court therefore decides to issue based on the said Act. The Court of Appeal considers that there is no need to assess the matter differently, even though the district court's list of cases in itself often contains information from more than just one trial. Since the law on the publicity of proceedings in general courts must be applied to A's request for documents based on the reasons stated above, the appeal guidance given by the district court was correct and the court of appeal is competent to investigate main issueCase listsThe Court of Appeal accepts the district court's reasoning and the final result regarding the issuing of case lists of criminal cases, with the amendment of the reasoning that it is not considered a prerequisite for fulfilling the journalistic purpose that the published activity should increase confidence in the operation of the courts. Public statements In the application submitted to the district court, A has requested that all public statements be delivered to him in the future , if they are not published on the district court's website. The Court of Appeal accepts the district court's reasoning that the Kymenlaakso District Court publishes public reports on its website. In the case, however, based on A's request, it must be assessed whether in the future the district court must deliver to him the public statements that may not be published on the district court's website. Pursuant to Section 2, subsection 3 of the Act on the Publicity of Trials in General Courts, to the extent that this Act does not provide otherwise, the court applies , which is stipulated in the Act on the Publicity of Authorities' Activities (621/1999). The Court of Appeal states that the public reports drawn up by the district court typically do not include the European Parliament and Council Regulation on the protection of natural persons in the processing of personal data and the free movement of this data and the repeal of Directive 95/46/EC (EU ) 2016/679 (general data protection regulation) personal data referred to in Article 4, subsection 1, in which case the provision of Section 16, subsection 3 of the Act on the Publicity of the Activities of the Authorities explained in the district court's decision in connection with the reasons for issuing lists of cases does not limit the release of public reports to the requester. according to § 13 subsection 1 of the law, the request to obtain information about the content of the authority's document must be identified sufficiently so that the authority can find out which document the request concerns. According to the provisions of the law (HE 30/1998 vp, p. 70), the subject of a request for access to information may, based on the provision, be a document that does not yet exist at the time the request is made, but which is created as a result of the authority's normal activities. In the legal literature (Mäenpää, Olli: Hallintolaki ja ogøn rålnings takeet, 2021, p. 376) it has been considered that a request to receive, within a specified period, documents concerning a certain precisely defined matter, for example issued building permits, can be considered sufficiently specific. In legal practice (KHO 6.9.2007/2254) it has been considered that the request for documents had not been identified in such a way that the authority could have been required to clarify the object of the request for documents, when, among other things, it was taken into account that the request was aimed at an unlimited time. direct the document request to public statements that have not yet been prepared at the time of the request. However, the request for the submission of all public reports not published on the website of the district court from the moment of the request onwards is unlimited in time. The Court of Appeal considers that, under these circumstances, A's request for documents regarding public statements cannot be considered sufficiently specific as intended in section 13, subsection 1 of the Act on the Publicity of the Activities of Public Authorities. According to section 16, subsection 1 of the Act on Publicity of the Activities of Public Authorities, information about the content of the authority's document is given orally or by giving the document to the authority to be seen and copied or listened to or by giving a copy or printout of it. Information about the public content of the document must be provided in the manner requested, unless complying with the request, due to the large number of documents or the difficulty of copying the document, or any other comparable reason, would cause unreasonable harm to official activities. In practice, the implementation of A's request would require the issuance of a separate internal district court instruction that in all cases where public report, a copy of the report should be sent to A in the future, if it is not published on the district court's website. The implementation of the request would therefore also require the separation of public statements not published on the website from public statements published on them. Issuing public statements in the manner requested would cause undue harm to official activities as referred to in section 16, subsection 1 of the Act on the Publicity of Official Activities. Based on these grounds, the Court of Appeal considers that A's request must be rejected. Court costs There is no express provision in the Act on the Publicity of Trials in General Courts or elsewhere on the reimbursement of court costs. in a case like the one at hand, where the court, pursuant to Section 28, subsection 1 of the Act on the Publicity of Trials in General Courts, makes a decision on the release of trial documents. Due to the quality of the case, A has no counterparty in the case against whom he could direct his claim for legal costs. There is no reason to receive compensation for court costs from state funds either. Consequently, A's claim for legal costs must be rejected.Decision The outcome of the district court's decision or the appeal guidance issued by the district court will not be changed. A's claim for reimbursement of his court costs is rejected.- - - - - - - - - - - -Members of the Court of Appeal who decided the case: Court of Appeal Counselor Pirjo SoininenCourt of Appeal Counselor Sirpa PulkkinenCourt of Appeal Counselor Tiina Kiviranta Presenter: Court of Appeal Rapporteur Sini ToskalaThe decision is unanimous.
</pre>