TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): And the applicant companies seem to admit this, for example, in paragraph 54 of the written submission.
GR1 (Government): There is no relevance whether other newspapers or media publish taxation data and how, as the applicant companies persistently claim, despite the fact they complained under Article 14, on the same ground was declared inadmissible by the chamber.
GR1 (Government): In any case, as it appears from the prints from the websites of hs.fi, yle.fi, and taloussanomat.fi,
GR1 (Government): and also from the prints from the websites of Ildasanomat and Helsingin Sanomat submitted by the applicant already in the Anttila case illustrating taxation year 2001, the information that can be obtained from those websites today and that could be obtained concerning taxation year 2001 is crucially different.
GR1 (Government): As the applicant companies admit, these websites illustrate the income of persons whose income is fairly large and being a matter of public interest already as such, whereas Veropörssi as well as the SMS service list a very small income.
GR1 (Government): The total amount of the information is also crucially different.
GR1 (Government): This appears also from a reply given by the data protection ombudsman to a question concerning a journalistic purpose of the processing of personal data by newspaper Helsingin Sanomat submitted by the government.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the information published by Ildasanomat is crucially different from the information published by the applicant companies.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, the Council of Mass Media has addressed the issue of publishing taxation information in a newspaper.
GR1 (Government): The applicant company's submission is incomplete as appears from the decision submitted by the government.
GR1 (Government): As to the consequences of the domestic decision, the government wishes to draw the court's attention to the entire operations of the applicant companies.
GR1 (Government): As it appears from the print from the business information system submitted by the government, Satakunamarkkinapörssi has operated mainly on other fields and Satamedia Oy started publishing Veropörssi in 2006.
GR1 (Government): The relevance of the domestic decisions to Satakunamarkkinapörssi is thus unclear, which emerges even more now that the applicant company has been declared bankrupt.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, any question of chilling effect cannot arise in this particular case, as is obvious from your court's case law as applied to the present case.
GR1 (Government): The government submits that at any rate, the alleged interference with the applicant companies right to the freedom of expression was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and moreover necessary in a democratic society.
GR1 (Government): As to the question of the alleged violation of Article 6 Paragraph 1 very briefly, the total length of the proceedings is reasonable as explained, reasoned, and calculated thoroughly in the government's written submissions, and there is no violation of Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the convention in the present case.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, finally, as to the applicant company's claims
GR1 (Government): for just satisfaction, the government recalls that in the proceedings before the chamber, the applicant companies have claimed for pecuniary damages in relation to the alleged violation of Article 10.
GR1 (Government): No causal link exists between a damage claimed and the alleged violation.
GR1 (Government): The claim should be rejected.
GR1 (Government): The calculation provided by the applicant companies cannot be considered sufficient to verify any of the claimed damage.
GR1 (Government): What is striking is that the applicant companies have presented a new claim of 900,000 euros in their written submissions, which is triple the amount that the applicant companies claimed before, one day after the bankruptcy of Satakunan Markkinapörssi.
GR1 (Government): A significant claim for costs and expenses has been put forward concerning the applicant companies' costs before the grand chamber, however, without any documentation to support it.
GR1 (Government): Should your court have another opinion, the question of the application of Article 41 is not in this respect ready for decision, and the said question must be reserved.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, final conclusion.
GR1 (Government): The government refers to the margin of appreciation afforded to it and emphasizes it as the chamber found that your court would require strong reasons to substitute its own view for that of the domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): Such reasons have not been put forward by the applicant companies before the grand chamber, either that would merit assessing the matter differently.
GR1 (Government): To reply to the applicant on the question of how they could have continued the protection of personal data, they could have continued by protecting personal data.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Thank you. Now I would like to invite members of the judges of the Grand Chamber wishing to do so,
András Sajó (JudgeP): to put their questions to the parties.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Judges, yes, judge O’Leary.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): My first question is composed of two branches, but it's addressed to both parties.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The government referred to the advisory opinion requested by the tax administration from the Data Protection Ombudsman in 2000 and 2001.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And what I'd like the government to do is to clarify a little what advice the ombudsman provided and what was requested of or indicated to the applicant companies at that stage.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The same question is addressed in a different form to the applicant companies.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Could the applicants explain why, after that opinion, and request for further information by the tax administration, they cancelled their access request and hired people to collect the data manually from the tax offices?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): That's my first factual question.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The other two questions are of a more legal nature.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And again, they're addressed to both parties.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): But principally, the second question is addressed to the respondent government.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And it relates to the issue of the quantum of data accessed and disseminated.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): In terms of reliance on the journalistic purposes derogation in Section 2.5 of the Finnish legislation
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): and Article 9 of the EU directive, where is the cutoff point regarding quantum?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And how are journalists to establish what it is?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): I stress that this question relates only to quantum, a separate question, of course, arising, as the respondent government pointed out, as to the manner of dissemination.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And my third question is again addressed to both parties.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The taxation data at issue here is, as both of you have emphasized, it's public in the sense that it is publicly accessible, subject to the rules established under Finnish law.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The government has partly addressed this question, but I'd like you both to return to it.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Should this factor be determinative in the court's assessment of the balancing exercise undertaken by domestic courts under Articles 8 and 10?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And if not, what other considerations, particularly relating to data protection, are relevant to the balancing of rights which domestic courts have to engage in?
András Sajó (JudgeP): So the next questions will be asked by Judge Koskelo, please.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): I would like to pose one question to the representative of the applicants.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): Of course, the government is also free to comment on it.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): In your written and also oral submissions, one of your key arguments is that the Data Protection Act was not meant at all to restrict any publishing activities concerning personal data.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): And my question is this.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): In the Data Protection Act, as well as in the EU directive on which the act is based, as well as in the new general data protection regulation that has been adopted earlier this year in the EU, in all of these legislative instruments, it is expressly provided that the processing of personal data does cover, among other things, the disclosure by transmission, the dissemination, and other making available of personal data.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): So in light of these express provisions, I would ask the applicants' representative to explain to the court on what basis you maintain that the data protection legislation is not intended at all to restrict any publishing of personal data.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): And secondly, it would also be interesting to hear your views on the implications for data protection if data protection cannot cover the dissemination of personal data at all, or if it cannot in any way extend to the dissemination of personal data in case the disseminator declares that he is a journalist.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Other further questions?
András Sajó (JudgeP): If not, I would like to ask first the government.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I understand that there are other media journalists who publish information, but this is about people whose income seems to be higher.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Could you elaborate on how long those lists are, if they are lists at all?
András Sajó (JudgeP): What is the difference between information about richer people versus less financially fortunate people in terms of purposes of journalism?
András Sajó (JudgeP): And also I would like to understand really how the system works, because it was already quoted just a moment ago by Judge Koskelo that the Act on the Public Disclosure of Confidentiality of Tax Information expressly states, among other acts, that this act, the Personal Data Act, does not restrict the collection of such data.
András Sajó (JudgeP): But it says only collection.
András Sajó (JudgeP): We will hear whether there is more authorized than that.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Now I wonder if these other newspapers or other journalists went to the tax authority.
András Sajó (JudgeP): What measures the tax authority or those who keep the registry apply?
András Sajó (JudgeP): Is there a form that the journalist has to fill out indicating the purpose?
András Sajó (JudgeP): What is the procedure?
András Sajó (JudgeP): Are there questions raised by the authorities when the collection or perhaps distribution is authorized?
András Sajó (JudgeP): So I think that is my question at the moment.
András Sajó (JudgeP): If there are no further questions, I suggest that we will withdraw for 25 minutes.
András Sajó (JudgeP): So we will start at 10.45 sharp.
András Sajó (JudgeP): And following the break, the parties will be able to submit their brief observations in reply to each other's submissions and reply to the questions from the judges.
András Sajó (JudgeP): So the hearing is suspended.
András Sajó (JudgeP): The hearing is resumed.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I call Mr. Vainio, please.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, distinguished judges.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, the first question presented by distinguished Judge O'Leary.
AP1 (Applicant): My clients indeed did present a request on digital release of the taxation data, which was later canceled.
AP1 (Applicant): I am not all that well informed of the circumstances concerning this.
AP1 (Applicant): But to my knowledge, I have discussed this at the time briefly with my clients.
AP1 (Applicant): The problem as regards to applicants appeared to be the price of such digital release.
AP1 (Applicant): My clients did consider it cheaper to employ people to collect the tax data manually from the public tax records.
AP1 (Applicant): As regards to the next question, whether the matter of the data being public domain should affect the setting of balance between data protection and the right to impart information, firstly, the matter that something is set as public per se implies a public interest.
AP1 (Applicant): But secondly, that does not, of course, always mean that all such data may be published.
AP1 (Applicant): That is not my claim.
AP1 (Applicant): But concerning tax data, taxation data in Finland in particular, now again, I refer to the preparatory works of legislation.
AP1 (Applicant): Both the matter that that data being public domain and the publishing of it were weighed and discussed in the legislative process.
AP1 (Applicant): It was discussed whether there should be an income limit to public taxation data.
AP1 (Applicant): That idea was given up, as is pointed out by the government.
AP1 (Applicant): The already then ongoing publishing of this data was also discussed.
AP1 (Applicant): And the result was that all data was to remain public and the publishing was considered serving the ends of this data being public domain.
AP1 (Applicant): For instance, citizen supervision, which was mentioned in the government bill.
AP1 (Applicant): And certain other ends set by the fact that tax data was to remain as public domain.
AP1 (Applicant): So in this case, I suggest that the publishing of taxation data has been considered, not only the publicity, but also the publishing has been considered with care and accepted by the legislature.
AP1 (Applicant): And I suggest that this should affect where the balance is put.
AP1 (Applicant): I'd say that the legislature has already made that quite clear.
AP1 (Applicant): Alas, not in the actual laws, but this comes out in the preparatory work.
AP1 (Applicant): These are, in Finland, regarded as sources of legislative intention, albeit that they are not strictly binding to codes of law.
AP1 (Applicant): Nevertheless, they are sources of law that are to be used in taxing.
AP1 (Applicant): Concerning the question by Distinguished Judge Koskela, the applicants, one of the core arguments indeed has been that personal data act was not intended to restrict publishing activities.
AP1 (Applicant): And that is based on, again, in the preparatory works, the government bills.
AP1 (Applicant): And in this case, it goes so that the preceding act of personal data act was the Person Registers Act.
AP1 (Applicant): And in the preparatory work of personal data act, it was stated that as far as the journalistic exceptions were concerned, the legal status was to remain unchanged.
AP1 (Applicant): So to look for the legislature's intention, we have to look at the government bill of the Person Registers Act.
AP1 (Applicant): That is the government bill 311, 1993.
AP1 (Applicant): And in its general motivations, section 3.3, which is under the
AP1 (Applicant): title, influences on media and citizens.
AP1 (Applicant): And I translate freely, so excuse possible mistakes.
AP1 (Applicant): As regards media, the proposed law means as freedom of expression is concerned, that for the usage of this freedom of expression via media could not, based on Person Registers Act, set such conditions that could even indirectly mean proactive restriction of freedom of expression.
AP1 (Applicant): And in the same government bill 311, 1993, in the general arguments, section 1.3, it has been stated the part of the data
AP1 (Applicant): collected by media is not problematic concerning data protection.
AP1 (Applicant): Since after this information is published, any activity insulting the right to privacy can be dealt with in retrospect.
AP1 (Applicant): Only, and this I find important, only a part of the registered information is to be published and therefore dealt with in retrospect.
AP1 (Applicant): On this and also the preparatory work of the law concerning the tax data and that being public domain, I base this argument.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, do the journalists have free access to personal data?
AP1 (Applicant): I'd say no, not any more than anybody else.
AP1 (Applicant): Why should they?
AP1 (Applicant): But I do suggest that if anybody has access to certain information, that itself gives a strong implication that this could also be published.
AP1 (Applicant): That is, however, not always the case.
AP1 (Applicant): Not all information that anybody can have access to can be published freely.
AP1 (Applicant): I'm not suggesting that.
AP1 (Applicant): But what I am suggesting, that when it concerns taxation data in my country, in Finland, where that has, so far as anybody can remember, been public domain, and it has, so far as anybody can remember, always been published to a certain extent.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, that should not be restricted with the concept of journalism or with any other grounds.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Vainio.
András Sajó (JudgeP): I would like to call Mrs. Oinonen.
GR1 (Government): as to the applicant company's claims for just satisfaction, there is no causal link.
GR1 (Government): As an example, the calculations submitted by applicant companies illustrates only a time period between June 2007 and November 2012.
GR1 (Government): That's only a fraction of the time period when Veropörsi was published.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the applicant companies have continued their activities even after 2009 and to even begin to analyse the possible consequences of the impugned measures.
GR1 (Government): The calculation should illustrate the revenue from a longer period of time and all the way until the moment the claim has been put forward.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the calculation provided by the applicant companies does not provide any explanation of how the reported revenue is divided based on different activities and to different companies.
GR1 (Government): In any case, the calculation provided by the applicant companies without any account of book or attached auditor's report or any other proof cannot be considered sufficient to verify the claimed damage.
GR1 (Government): The government or the court cannot fetch documents from the trade register.
GR1 (Government): Should your court have another opinion, it is clear that the question of the application of Article 41 is not, in this respect, ready for decision and the same question must be reserved.
GR1 (Government): As regards to questions, the Personal Data Act does not stipulate of the cutoff point regarding the amount of personal data which could be published for journalistic purposes.
GR1 (Government): Instead, the Personal Data Act 2, paragraph 5, contains, for example, provisions regarding protecting the personal data file, which the processing of personal data must meet even when it is processed for journalistic purposes.
GR1 (Government): We see that setting determinative quantities is not possible and could lead to restricting proactively as the considerations culminate in assessing whether the processing has been carried out for journalistic purposes.
GR1 (Government): Should it be determinative that the information was in the public domain?
GR1 (Government): Not in the sense that it was the only consideration.
GR1 (Government): As mentioned by the government, the principle of public access to official documents is strong in Finland and thus information falling in the domain of private life, such as tax data, may be publicly available.
GR1 (Government): However, private life is to be protected also and personal data processed as laid down by law and the EU directive.
GR1 (Government): Thus, information being public cannot automatically mean that it can be published.
GR1 (Government): As regards other media, the limits for publishing taxation information applied by the other media on their own initiative have been, for example, 100,000 euros and 150,000 euros, so that is a considerably high sum of money.
GR1 (Government): Thus, considerable yearly income also in Finland.
GR1 (Government): Taxation information on lower income might have been published, but these have always related to public figure.
GR1 (Government): They refer to the material submitted by the government.
GR1 (Government): Regarding how the information is provided, providing information is based on act of openness, which takes into account Data Protection Act.
GR1 (Government): Everybody is equal before this law.
GR1 (Government): The information can be requested by submitting a form which asks applicant to specify the purposes of the data processing, and we have submitted this form to your court.
GR1 (Government): And naturally, all media in Finland is treated equally.
GR1 (Government): The government notes that the applicant companies have not received any data in digital form on income taxation from the National Board of Taxes slash the tax administration.
GR1 (Government): The applicant companies, that is Veropersi Magazine, ordered the data in question from the National Board of Taxes on 27th September 2000 and 5th November 2001.
GR1 (Government): On account of the first order, the National Board of Taxes requested an opinion of the Data Protection Ombudsman, which was received on 8th October 2001.
GR1 (Government): And in this opinion, the assessment provided by the Data Protection Ombudsman provides that the activities of the Veropersi Magazine are likely to belong to the scope of application of the Personal Data Act.
GR1 (Government): I thank you, Mr. President.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Thank you, Ms. Oinonen.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Hutchinson against the United Kingdom.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on the 10th of November 2008 under Article 34 of the Convention by a British national, Mr. Arthur Hutchinson.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the fourth section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 3rd of February 2015, a chamber of the fourth section declared the application admissible as regards Article 3 of the Convention and told that there had been no violation of that provision.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 3rd of March 2015, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on the 1st of June 2015.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 27th of August 2015, leave was granted to the European Prison Litigation Network to submit written comments as a third party by virtue of Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mr. Paul McKell, agent assisted by Mr. Jeremy Wright, QC Attorney General, Mr. James Eadie, QC Counsel, and by Ms. Alison Foulds, Ms. Catherine  Gaskell, and Mr. James Gerard, and Ms. Justine Earl, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Joel Bennathan, and QC Counsel assisted by Ms. Katy Thorne, and Mr. John Turner, advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I also welcome the following groups of judges who are attending this hearing.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Representatives of the Judicial Academy of Azerbaijan, a group of judges from the Russian Federation, judges from the Swiss Canton of Argyle, and judges from other regional courts, namely the African Court of Human and People's Rights and the African Commission, the East African Court of Justice, the Court of the Economic Community of West African States, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting into the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Azeri and Russian has also been authorized.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Bennathan QC for the applicant will speak first, and then Attorney General Wright QC for the government.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Bennathan QC.
AP1 (Applicant): this is a case about humanity.
AP1 (Applicant): The idea enshrined in Article 3 that no human being, no matter how awful their crimes, ceases to be human.
AP1 (Applicant): There must always be the possibility, no matter how remote, of reform, of redemption, of rehabilitation, and of release.