Information Note on the Court’s case-law 191
December 2015
Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland (referral) - 931/13
Judgment 21.7.2015 [Section IV]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom to impart information
Order restraining mass publication of tax information: case referred to the Grand Chamber
The first applicant company (Satakunnan) published a magazine providing information on the taxable income and assets of Finnish taxpayers. The information was, by law, public.* The second applicant company (Satamedia) offered a service supplying taxation information by SMS text message. In April 2003 the Data Protection Ombudsman requested the Data Protection Board to restrain the applicant companies from processing taxation data in the manner and to the extent they had in 2002 and from passing such data to an SMS-service. The Data Protection Board dismissed the Ombudsman’s request on the grounds that the applicant companies were engaged in journalism and so were entitled to a derogation from the provisions of the Personal Data Act. The case subsequently came before the Supreme Administrative Court, which in February 2007 sought a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the interpretation of the EU Data Protection Directive.** In its judgment of 16 December 2008*** the CJEU ruled that activities relating to data from documents which were in the public domain under national legislation could be classified as “journalistic activities” if their object was to disclose to the public information, opinions or ideas, irrespective of the medium used to transmit them. In September 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court directed the Data Protection Board to forbid the processing of taxation data in the manner and to the extent carried out by the applicant companies in 2002. Noting that the CJEU had found that the decisive factor was to assess whether a publication contributed to a public debate or was solely intended to satisfy the curiosity of readers, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the publication of the whole database collected for journalistic purposes and the transmission of the information to the SMS service could not be regarded as journalistic activity.
In the Convention proceedings the applicant companies complained, among other matters, of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
In a judgment of 21 July 2015 a Chamber of the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. It found that the domestic authorities had relied on relevant and sufficient reasons in their decisions and had struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake. It noted, in particular, the Supreme Administrative Court’s finding that the publication of the whole database could not be regarded as journalistic activity and that the public interest had not required such extensive publication of personal data. In the Chamber’s view, the Supreme Administrative Court had balanced the applicant companies’ right to freedom of expression against the right to privacy, interpreting the applicant companies’ freedom of expression strictly in order to protect the right to privacy. That reasoning was acceptable.
The Chamber also held unanimously that there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts.
On 14 December 2015 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.
* See section 5 of the Act on the Public Disclosure and Confidentiality of Tax Information.
** Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
*** Tietosuojavaltuutettu v. Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy, C‑73/07, judgment of 16 December 2008.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy