I-SHO - I-SHO:2024:5

I-SHO - I-SHO:2024:5
Court:	I-SHO (Finland)
Jurisdiction:	Finland
Relevant Law:	Article 85(1) GDPR Article 85(2) GDPR Julkisuuslaki (621/1999) 1 § Julkisuuslaki (621/1999) 16 § 3 Oikeudenkäynnin Julkisuuslaki (370/2007) Tietosuojalaki (1050/2018) 27 §
Decided:	03.06.2024
Published:
Parties:	A Kymenlaakson Käräjäoikeus
National Case Number/Name:	I-SHO:2024:5
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from:	Kymenlaakson käräjäoikeus
Appeal to:	Not appealed
Original Language(s):	Finnish
Original Source:	Tuomioistuinlaitos (in Finnish)
Initial Contributor:	n/a

A court held that the mere publication of decision summaries provided by a court could not be considered a journalistic purpose under Article 85 GDPR.

English Summary

Facts

A claimant requested the District Court of Kymeenlaakso (Ky­men­laak­son kä­rä­jä­oi­keus) to provide all case lists and public decision summaries that are not published on the court's website. The claimant 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 declined the request to provide the information.

According to the Law on litigation in public courts (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. The Act on the Publicity of the Activities of Public Authorities (Julkisuuslaki) in § 1 explicitly states that documents produced by authorities are public unless specific laws make them confidential.

§ 16 of the Act on the Publicity of the Activities of Public Authorities 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 Article 85 GDPR, member states must balance freedom of speech and freedom of information with protection of personal data in their national legislation. Finland's Act on the Publicity of the Activities of Public Authorities 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 determined that the claimant does not have a journalistic basis to process personal information and declined the request to provide the documents on a regular basis.

The claimant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland (Itä-Suo­men ho­vioi­keus).

Holding

The Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland accepted 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 noted that they usually do not contain personal information as defined in Article 4(1) GDPR. Therefore, Section 16 of the Act on the Publicity of the Activities of Public Authorities 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, inter alia because of potential, unreasonable duties that would burden the District Court.

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.

I-SHO:2024:5  
Document Request  
Appeal  
Case Number(s):  
H 24/283  
Decision Date:  
3 June 2024  
Decision Number:  
259

ESSENTIAL CONTENT OF THE DECISION

The District Court dismissed A's application, in which A requested that the District Court provide him with all future lists of oral proceedings in criminal cases and public summaries of the District Court's decisions, provided they are not published on the District Court's website. A primarily requested that the appeal guidance provided by the District Court be amended to allow for an appeal of the decision to the Administrative Court.

Since A's document request was governed by the Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings in General Courts, the appeal guidance provided by the District Court was correct, and the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to review the appeal.

DECISION OF THE KYMENLAAKSO DISTRICT COURT ON 8 FEBRUARY 2024

Subject Matter

Case Lists and Public Summaries

A submitted an application to the Kymenlaakso District Court via email at kymenlaakso.ko@oikeus.fi on 22 January 2024, requesting that the District Court provide him with all future lists of oral proceedings in criminal cases and public summaries of the District Court's decisions, provided they are not published on the District Court's website.

A stated that he would use the information for producing and publishing content on his own website. Additionally, A indicated that he monitors the consistency of judgments in certain case categories and examines the comprehensibility of the reasons given for judgments. He claimed that his purpose was journalistic.

District Court’s Decision

The District Court dismisses the application.

Grounds for the Decision

Applicable Provisions and Their Legislative History

According to Section 1 of the Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings in General Courts (370/2007), hereinafter referred to as the Publicity of Proceedings Act, court documents are public unless otherwise provided by the said Act or another law.

Pursuant to Section 3, Subsection 1, Paragraph 5 of the Publicity of Proceedings Act, a court document means a document as defined in Section 5, Subsections 1 and 2 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999), which has been submitted to the court or prepared in the court for the purposes of a legal proceeding. However, notes or drafts made in the court or other such documents that have not yet been submitted for consideration or other handling of the matter are not court documents.

According to Section 7 of the Publicity of Proceedings Act, everyone has the right to access a public court document. The publicity of a court document is regulated in Section 7 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act states that the means of providing access to a court document are governed by Section 16 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities.

Section 14, Subsection 3 of the Publicity of Proceedings Act stipulates that the court must announce an oral hearing by way of a case list no later than the start of the session. Section 25 requires the court to prepare a public summary of a decision ordered to be kept confidential.

According to Section 1, Subsection 1 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, government documents are public unless otherwise provided by the said Act or another law.

Section 3 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities states that the purpose of the rights of access to information and the obligations of authorities prescribed in the Act is to promote openness and good information management practices in government activities and to provide individuals and communities with the opportunity to monitor the exercise of public power and the use of public funds, to form their opinions freely, and to influence the exercise of public power and protect their rights and interests.

According to Section 5, Subsection 2 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, a government document means a document in the possession of an authority that the authority or a person in its service has prepared, or that has been submitted to the authority for the purpose of handling a matter or otherwise related to the authority's duties.

According to Section 9, Subsection 1 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, everyone has the right to access a government document that is public.

According to Section 13, Subsection 2 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, when requesting access to a document that is confidential or a government personal data register or other document from which information can only be disclosed under certain conditions, the requester must, unless otherwise provided, specify the purpose of use of the information and provide any other information necessary to determine the conditions for disclosure, as well as details on how the protection of the information is to be arranged, if necessary.

According to Section 16, Subsection 1 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, the content of a government document must be disclosed orally, by making the document available for inspection and copying or listening at the authority's premises, or by providing a copy or printout of the document. The information on the public content of the document must be provided in the requested manner, unless fulfilling the request would cause unreasonable harm to official activities due to the large number of documents, the difficulty of copying the document, or for other comparable reasons. According to Subsection 3 of the said Section, a copy or printout containing personal data from a government personal data register, or the information in electronic form, may only be provided if the recipient is entitled to store and use such personal data under the provisions on the protection of personal data.

According to Section 17, Subsection 1 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, an authority must ensure that access to information on government activities is not restricted without a valid and legally prescribed reason, and not more than necessary to protect the interest in question, taking into account Sections 1 and 3 of the Act. The authority must also ensure that information requesters are treated equitably.

The Government Proposal for the Act on the Openness of Government Activities (HE 30/1998 vp) states in its detailed reasoning on Section 16, Subsection 3 of the Act that the subsection contains a specific provision on the disclosure of personal data, and that the purpose of the regulation is to prevent the public availability of personal data from leading to practices of maintaining registers or otherwise processing data in violation of the provisions on the protection of personal data. The Government Proposal further states that under the Personal Data Act, media organizations have the right to maintain editorial registers, which implies that media organizations could be allowed to receive public personal data as technical records or otherwise as mass printouts.

According to Section 27, Subsection 1 of the Data Protection Act (1050/2018), to ensure the freedom of expression and the freedom to disseminate information, the processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes or for the purposes of academic, artistic, or literary expression is exempt from the application of Articles 5(1)(c-e), 6, 7, 9, 10, 11(2), 12-22, 30, 34(1-3), 35, 36, 56, 58(2)(f), 60-63, and 65-67 of the General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) of the European Union.

Evidence and Legal Evaluation in the Case

The publicity of court proceedings is the rule, and deviations from this are based on law. Publicity is a fundamental human right and its purpose is to increase transparency and trust in the functioning of 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 must be handled. Data protection regulations apply to all, including public, personal data. The purpose of the Data Protection Regulation is to minimize the harm caused to data subjects by improper processing of their personal data.

A has requested case lists to produce material for his own website. He stated that the basis for processing the requested information is a journalistic purpose and requested that the District Court provide the material via email.

The District Court's case lists contain, as required by law, the names of parties other than the complainants. Case lists are public government documents in their entirety. However, since the matter concerns the provision of personal data from a government personal data register, the condition for providing the information electronically, as a copy, or in print, is, according to Section 16, Subsection 3 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, that the appellant has the right under the provisions on the protection of personal data to store and use the requested information.

The question to be assessed is whether the publication activity on A's website meets the conditions of journalistic activity as defined by the Data Protection Act, which would allow the disclosure of information under Section 27 of the Data Protection Act.

The journalistic purpose is not always clearly interpretable. The starting point, however, is that the journalistic purpose of information requests should be interpreted broadly. The role of journalism is to collect, verify, and analyze information to be presented through the media. A characteristic of journalism is that the journalist has edited, analyzed, and clarified the information collected. One perspective for assessing the journalistic purpose is the extent to which the publication activity promotes a socially relevant discussion and when its purpose is more to satisfy the curiosity of individuals.

The Act on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media (460/2003) regulates the exercise of the freedom of expression in mass communication, as guaranteed by the Constitution. According to Section 3 of the Act, it applies to publication and broadcasting activities carried out in Finland. When a private person maintains a homepage on an electronic communication network, only Sections 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, and 24 of the Act apply to

 them. In such cases, the responsibilities and obligations prescribed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Act do not apply.

There are no similar requirements for online publication activities by private individuals (citizen journalism) as those prescribed for mass communication in the Act. A private person is also not required to adhere to the ethical guidelines of journalists, nor is their publication activity overseen by the Council for Mass Media.

Conclusions

A has not provided credible evidence that the basis for his request meets the journalistic purpose as defined in the Data Protection Act. Merely engaging in publication activities is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a journalistic purpose. A's publication activity does not, as required by law, increase transparency and trust in the functioning of the courts.

A does not have a journalistic basis under Section 27 of the Data Protection Act for processing personal data. Therefore, the District Court will not provide A with the case lists.

Public Summaries

The Kymenlaakso District Court publishes public summaries on its website.

---

Member of the District Court who made the decision:

Chief Judge Markku Almgrén

DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF EASTERN FINLAND ON 3 JUNE 2024

Claims in the Court of Appeal

A primarily requested that the appeal guidance provided by the District Court be amended to allow for an appeal of the decision to the Administrative Court. Alternatively, A requested that the District Court's decision be overturned and that the Kymenlaakso District Court be ordered to provide him with the requested information at least in part. Additionally, A requested reimbursement of his legal costs in the amount of EUR 44, with interest.

The decision on a request for information under the Act on the Openness of Government Activities is appealed to the Administrative Court.

A claims that the requested information serves a journalistic purpose. The Supreme Court has approved his request for information for journalistic purposes. He adheres to the applicable laws to the best of his knowledge.

Permission for Further Proceedings

The Court of Appeal grants A permission for further proceedings.

Decision of the Court of Appeal

Grounds

Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal

According to Section 33, Subsection 4 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, appeals in matters concerning the publicity of court proceedings are governed by the provisions of the Publicity of Proceedings Act and the Act on the Publicity of Proceedings in Administrative Courts.

According to Section 2, Subsection 1 of the Publicity of Proceedings Act, the Act governs the publicity of proceedings and court documents in the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, the District Courts, the Labour Court, and the Military Courts. According to Section 28, Subsection 1 of the same Act, a decision under this Act is made upon request, or if the court deems it necessary to make a decision, or if a third party requests information on the content of a court document. According to Section 33, Subsection 1 of the Act, a decision made by a court under this Act may be appealed separately in the same manner as a decision on the main matter by the court in question. The legislative history of the Act indicates that decisions under the Act are generally considered judicial decisions. An appeal against any decision under the Act may be filed separately, following the appeal route of the main matter. The appeal route typically leads first to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court. (HE 13/2006 vp, pp. 69, 77, and 78)

The definition of a court document according to Section 3, Subsection 1, Paragraph 5 of the Publicity of Proceedings Act, and the provisions on case lists in Section 14 and public summaries in Section 25, are outlined in the District Court's decision. The legislative history concerning the definition of a court document indicates that a court document refers to a document related to a specific individual legal proceeding that has been submitted to or prepared by the court as part of that proceeding. On the other hand, documents created or accumulated in the court's other activities, such as its administration, are not court documents and thus not subject to the provisions of the Act. (HE 13/2006 vp, pp. 28 and 29)

A requested the District Court to provide him with both case lists in criminal matters and public summaries via email. Both types of documents are prepared by the court and relate to a specific individual legal proceeding. These documents must be regarded as court documents within the meaning of the Publicity of Proceedings Act, and the court's decision on their disclosure is governed by the said Act. The Court of Appeal considers that the matter should not be assessed differently, even though the District Court's case list often includes information on more than just one proceeding.

As A's document request is governed by the Publicity of Proceedings Act as outlined above, the appeal guidance provided by the District Court was correct, and the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to review the appeal.

The Main Issue

Case Lists

The Court of Appeal accepts the District Court's reasoning and conclusion regarding the provision of case lists in criminal matters, with the modification that it should not be a requirement for the fulfillment of a journalistic purpose that the publication activity should enhance trust in the functioning of the courts.

Public Summaries

In the application submitted to the District Court, A requested that he be provided with all public summaries in the future, provided 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 summaries on its website. However, based on A's request, it must be assessed whether the District Court is required to provide him with public summaries that may not be published on the District Court's website in the future.

According to Section 2, Subsection 3 of the Publicity of Proceedings Act, unless otherwise provided in the Act, the provisions of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999) apply in court.

The Court of Appeal notes that the public summaries prepared by the District Court typically do not contain personal data as defined in Article 4, Subsection 1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerning the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC. Therefore, the provision of Section 16, Subsection 3 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, which was discussed in the context of the provision of case lists, does not restrict the disclosure of public summaries to the requester.

According to Section 13, Subsection 1 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, a request for information on the content of a government document must be sufficiently specific to enable the authority to determine which document the request pertains to. The legislative history of the provision (HE 30/1998 vp, p. 70) indicates that the request for information may be directed at a document that does not yet exist at the time of the request but will result from the authority's normal activities. Legal literature (Mäenpää, Olli: Administrative Law and the Guarantees of Good Governance, 2021, p. 376) suggests that a request for documents related to a specific issue, such as granted building permits, during a defined period can be considered sufficiently specific. In case law (KHO 6.9.2007/2254), it has been held that a document request was not sufficiently specific for the authority to be expected to determine the subject of the document request, considering, among other things, the request's unlimited time frame.

Based on the above, the Court of Appeal notes that there is no obstacle to directing a document request at public summaries that have not yet been prepared at the time of the request. However, the request for the provision of all public summaries not published on the District Court's website from the time of the request onwards is time-unlimited. The Court of Appeal considers that A's document request for public summaries cannot, in these circumstances, be considered sufficiently specific as required by Section 13, Subsection 1 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities.

According to Section 16, Subsection 1 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, the content of a government document must be disclosed orally, by making the document available for inspection and copying or listening at the authority's premises, or by providing a copy or printout of the document. The information on the public content of the document must be provided in the requested manner, unless fulfilling the request would cause unreasonable harm to official activities due to the large number of documents, the difficulty of copying the document, or for other comparable reasons.

Fulfilling A's request would practically require issuing separate internal instructions within the District Court that in all cases where a public summary is prepared, a copy of the summary must be sent to A if it is not published on the District Court's website. Fulfilling the request would thus also require distinguishing public summaries not published on the website from those that are. Providing the public summaries in the requested manner would cause unreasonable harm to official activities as referred to in Section 16, Subsection 1 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeal considers that A's request should be dismissed.

Legal Costs

The Publicity of Proceedings Act or other legislation does not contain a specific provision on the reimbursement of legal costs in a case like the one at hand, where the court, under Section 28, Subsection 1 of the Publicity of Proceedings Act, makes a decision on the provision of court documents.

Due to the nature of the matter, A does not have an opposing party against whom he could direct his claim for legal costs. There is also no basis for reimbursing the legal

 costs from state funds. Thus, A's claim for reimbursement of legal costs must be dismissed.

Decision Summary

The outcome of the District Court's decision or the appeal guidance provided by the District Court will not be changed.

A's claim for reimbursement of his legal costs is dismissed.

---

Members of the Court of Appeal who made the decision:

Judge of Appeal Pirjo Soininen  
Judge of Appeal Sirpa Pulkkinen  
Judge of Appeal Tiina Kiviranta

Presenter: Court of Appeal Rapporteur Sini Toskala

The decision is unanimous.

Information on Finality:

Final and binding.