TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): away who could be most happy if the Grand Chamber chose to give a ruling which could be even interpreted to accept the concept of journalism as gateway to full freedom of expression, and that this could be done based on the content of the publishing, that in this case being all public information. I could even imagine such heads of state saying,
AP1 (Applicant): so that's how I can do it. First, I do not regard it as journalism. Second, I consider
AP1 (Applicant): that it's violating privacy. Then I forbid it.
AP1 (Applicant): It is therefore of vital importance what is to be the message and the signal given by the ruling of the esteemed Grand Chamber. Referring to these observations and to everything
AP1 (Applicant): I have written in this case earlier, I invite the esteemed Grand Chamber to rule in favor of the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, distinguished members of the Grand Chamber, I thank you for your attention.
András Sajó (JudgeP): Thank you Mr. Vainio. Now I would like to call Miss Oinonen.
GR1 (Government): to begin with, the government refers to its extensive and detailed written submissions concerning the admissibility and merits of the case, including references to the case law of your court.
GR1 (Government): The chamber found a violation of Article 6, that is, length of proceedings, and no violation concerning Article 10.
GR1 (Government): As to the admissibility of the case, the government reiterates its preliminary objection already raised before the chamber and reiterated in the government's written submissions of 18 March 2016.
GR1 (Government): This objection relates to the applicant company's complaints made under both Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 10.
GR1 (Government): To de-effect that, as regards the first set of proceedings, the application with your court was not lodged within a period of six months, starting from the decisive and final domestic decision, namely that of 2009 decision by the Supreme Administrative Court.
GR1 (Government): The government emphasises that also the applicant in the case of Anttila v. Finland,
GR1 (Government): to which case the applicant companies have explicitly referred to and at the same time confirmed its similarity with the present case, regarded in this application lodged in 2010, the decision of 2009 by the Supreme Administrative Court, as the final domestic decision.
GR1 (Government): It should be borne in mind that the applicant in the Anttila case was the editor-in-chief of Veropörssi, one of the two shareholders, and the chairman of the board of the now complaining applicant company, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi, as well as one of the two shareholders and the chairman of the board of now complaining applicant company, Satamedia Oy.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the applicant in the Anttila case and the applicant companies in the present case have throughout the national proceedings, the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union and throughout the proceedings before your court, been represented by the same lawyer.
GR1 (Government): Only after the applicant's application in the Anttila case was declared inadmissible, rationae personae, the applicant companies in the present case lodged their application, this time based on a later domestic 2012 decision by the Supreme Administrative Court, which court, however, did not and could not rule on the subject matter.
GR1 (Government): This is the general prerequisites of processing of personal data in this particular case.
GR1 (Government): Indeed, the later set of proceedings concerned the question whether the orders issued by the Data Protection Board corresponded to the ruling already passed by the Supreme Administrative Court in 2009.
GR1 (Government): The Turku Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court could no longer examine the applicant companies' appeals as they were made against the subject matter already decided by the Supreme Administrative Court in 2009 and thus going beyond the finality of that decision.
GR1 (Government): The applicant companies' efforts against that decision were naturally futile.
GR1 (Government): The applicant companies were aware of this and acted accordingly.
GR1 (Government): As the applicant companies have put forward already in their initial application, that is paragraph 24, they have commenced to abide by the 2009 decision.
GR1 (Government): In addition, also the fact that your court communicated the Anttila application to the government for its written observations and did not refer the case to the judicial composition of three judges to be declared inadmissible without further examination implies that the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, it has to be taken into account that one of the applicant companies, Satakunna Markkinapörssi, has been declared bank-trapped already on 15 March 2016 and that the auxiliary company name, Satakunna Markkinapörssi, of Suomen Hernerengas, currently Suomen Ruokamarjat Oy, Finnish Food Paris Limited, was deleted from the trade register on 29 January 2016.
GR1 (Government): The government finds it astounding that the applicant companies had not notified the court of such highly relevant change in circumstances as bank-traps.
GR1 (Government): This situation may affect the proper administration of justice in the present proceedings.
GR1 (Government): In any case, this change in the legal status of one of the applicant companies challenges the question of the possible victim status of that applicant company, Satakunna Markkinapörssi.
GR1 (Government): In the government's view, this missing victim status of Satakunna Markkinapörssi should thus be taken also into account, also as it appears that Satakunna Markkinapörssi has not performed activities in question after Satamedia Oy took over the publishing of Veropörssi in 2006.
GR1 (Government): In the lack of any further information, the government starts with the premise that Satakunna Markkinapörssi and its assets are now managed by the bank-trap estate.
GR1 (Government): Turning to the merits of the case, the government considers it clear that this case is not about the publicity or publishing of taxation data as such, but about processing of personal data and the protection of such data.
GR1 (Government): The public taxation data, which is at the heart of this case, is personal data.
GR1 (Government): There is no question about this.
GR1 (Government): This case is about the protection of massive amounts of personal data published in printed lists for over a decade.
GR1 (Government): The information has been collected by hand and printed on paper.
GR1 (Government): This is not data journalism.
GR1 (Government): The respective third-party interventions indicate that third parties have very likely expressed their opinions without ever seeing a print of Veropörssi in its real format.
GR1 (Government): In this connection, the government notes that the right to protection of personal data forms part of the rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to respect for inter-alia private life.
GR1 (Government): The protection of one's private life is also one of the objects of the European Data Protection Directive, which in its first article requires that the EU member states shall protect, in particular, natural persons' right to privacy with respect to processing of personal data.
GR1 (Government): The Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data served as basis when the directive was negotiated.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the status of the right to protection of personal data as fundamental right has been strengthened in the European Union legal framework in the EU primary law.
GR1 (Government): The Treaty on Functioning of the European Union sets now an independent legal basis for data protection, and the EU has general competence to legislate on data protection matters, and the protection of personal data is recognised as a fundamental right in the EU Charter for Fundamental Rights.
GR1 (Government): The European data protection regime has recently gone through a profound reform process.
GR1 (Government): The so-called general data protection regulation replacing the data protection directive has already entered into force and will be directly applicable in member states from May 2018 onwards.
GR1 (Government): The Convention No. 108 was renegotiated simultaneously.
GR1 (Government): As the Supreme Administrative Court affirmed in its 2009 decision, this case is about ensuring that the processing of personal data is made in compliance with the prerequisites laid down in the Personal Data Act, which implements the European data protection directive.
GR1 (Government): As the Supreme Administrative Court held, the applicant company's processing of personal data did not fall within the scope of Section 2, subsection 5 of the Personal Data Act, establishing thus with a legally binding effect that legal principles should be followed in the processing of personal data.
GR1 (Government): Thus, it was confirmed that the applicant companies did not have freedom to process personal data as they had done.
GR1 (Government): The applicant companies can still collect and still publish public taxation data insofar as they comply with the requirements of the Personal Data Act.
GR1 (Government): There is no ban.
GR1 (Government): In this connection, it should be noted that the applicant company's account of their present activities differs to a surprising extent from publicly available information, in particular that the information given on their own veropörsi website.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the three copies of veropörsi that the applicant companies originally provided concern different taxation year than what was the basis of the assessment in the domestic proceedings taxation year 2001.
GR1 (Government): Only after an additional request by the Grand Chamber, the applicant companies provided one copy of the relevant veropörsi.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, as it appears from the print from veropörsi website, veropörsi was published in 2010-2011, listing taxation data for tax year 2008.
GR1 (Government): These and the older prints can still be ordered or downloaded.
GR1 (Government): It appears from a copy of 2010 veropörsi provided by the applicant companies after an additional request by the Grand Chamber that the size of the 2010 veropörsi, at last in terms of number of pages, was not different from that of 2003 veropörsi.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, it appears from the website a service subject to a charge is offered where one can authorise veropörsi to act as his or her agent for finding out the taxation data from the year 2014.
GR1 (Government): As the website states, the taxation data is delivered by email or as an SMS message.
GR1 (Government): It seems as evident that the applicant companies did not cease to publish veropörsi in 2009.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, it remains unclear if the information published truly was, as the applicant companies allege, about 20% of the information published before.
GR1 (Government): The government notes that the Chamber found that there had been an interference into the applicant companies' freedom of expression as an essential part of the information previously published would no longer be published.
GR1 (Government): This seems, however, not to be the case.
GR1 (Government): The applicant companies have not been proactively banned from publishing taxation data and certainly not have their publication been censored.
GR1 (Government): The assessment of the applicant companies' activities was done retroactively.
GR1 (Government): This way of interpreting legal issues is inherent practically in all court proceedings, including your court.
GR1 (Government): The government recalls that the data protection ombudsman initiated the proceedings against the applicant companies based on events that had already occurred.
GR1 (Government): The corrective powers applied by the ombudsman are based on the EU Data Protection Directive and even more specifically prescribed in the new General Data Protection Regulation.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the alleged imbuent measures certainly cannot be considered as characteristics of a totalitarian regime.
GR1 (Government): Such an argument is absurd.
GR1 (Government): As a recent article by David Erdos in International and Comparative Law Quarterly shows, Finland is one of those three countries together with Sweden and Norway in providing maximum derogations to the media from the EU data protection regime.
GR1 (Government): The question is not whether the applicant companies have lost something covered by the protection by Article 10, but about protecting something covered by Article 8.
GR1 (Government): In conclusion, the alleged imbuent measures did not constitute an interference with the applicant companies' right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Turning to the question of whether the alleged interference was justified under Article 10, Paragraph 2, the government underlines that taxation data is at the same time personal data, and that the processing and protection of such data is essentially regulated by the Personal Data Act.
GR1 (Government): This is something the applicant companies fail to see.
GR1 (Government): The Act on the Public Disclosure and Confidentiality of Tax Information determines the publicity of income tax data.
GR1 (Government): The Act on the Openness of Government Activities, in turn, regulates the access to the aforementioned public information, tax information.
GR1 (Government): As accepted by the Chamber, that is in Paragraph 55, the alleged interference was prescribed by law, and it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of rights of others within the meaning of Article 10, Paragraph 2.
GR1 (Government): Now I turn to the question of whether the alleged interference was necessary in a democratic society under Article 10, Paragraph 2.
GR1 (Government): At the outset, the government notes that there is no dispute over the publicity of the taxation data, or the access to such data, or whether it, in general terms, can be published.
GR1 (Government): Regardless of this, in their written submissions, the applicant companies have put forward untrue reasoning in this regard.
GR1 (Government): The public taxation data does not include occupation and sex.
GR1 (Government): The wealth taxation was abolished starting from 2006, and a person's wealth is no longer included in the public information.
GR1 (Government): It is true that anyone could have viewed at the relevant time the public information on a natural person's taxable income, as well as assets covering the tax year 2005, at local tax offices, as is provided for in Section 16 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities.
GR1 (Government): However, the manner of displaying the said information, as well as its copying and printing, is regulated in more detail in the same Act.
GR1 (Government): According to Section 16, subsection 3 of the Act, access may be granted in the form of a copy or printout, or an electronic format copy of the contents of the system, but only if the person requesting access has the right to record and use such data, according to the legislation on the protection of personal data.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, the disclosure of the information can be done in digital format for journalistic purposes, but only on the condition that the person requesting the information expressly declares that the data is actually used for such a purpose, or that it is not published as such in the form of a list.
GR1 (Government): Even in this situation, the whole taxation database publicly available cannot be disclosed, as it would be against the provisions of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, as is evident from the decision of 23 January 2015 by the Helsinki Administrative Court, submitted by the government.
GR1 (Government): The order of public income tax information has been disclosed free of charge since 2013.
GR1 (Government): Before that, on the basis of a decree, the Tax Administration collected a charge based on the exact cost price for the transactions.
GR1 (Government): The price was fixed and non-negotiable.
GR1 (Government): The applicant companies ordered data in digital format, but after inquiries by the Tax Administration concerning their possibilities to satisfy the data protection requirement specified by the Tax Administration, withdrew their request.
GR1 (Government): Thus, they did not affirm by the required declaration.
GR1 (Government): In all cases, this episode demonstrates that the applicant companies had in their firm knowledge also this part of the data protection regulation.
GR1 (Government): Something that cannot be overlooked in this context is that the similarly large public transparency and availability of the taxation information, as has been realized in Finland, is rare.
GR1 (Government): In this connection, it should be noted that the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents guarantees the right of everyone to have access to official documents held by public authorities.
GR1 (Government): Convention has been ratified by nine member states, including Finland, and will enter into force after one more member state has ratified it.
GR1 (Government): In Finland, the fundamental principle of public access to official documents is broadly applied.
GR1 (Government): Thus, certain personal data, such as taxation data, is public and publicly available.
GR1 (Government): Should the publicity of such data automatically mean that it could always be published regardless of the considerations of private life of others, it could lead to a pressure to limit the publicity of such information.
GR1 (Government): One could question if the present case resulting from Finland's high transparency country background would exist at all had the transparency model been the reverse.
GR1 (Government): The reply is obvious, no way.
GR1 (Government): And accordingly, in that case, the question arises, should the high level of transparency be accordingly valued or not?
GR1 (Government): In any case, the publicity of taxation data does not automatically mean that it can be published.
GR1 (Government): The applicant companies have themselves admitted this.
GR1 (Government): The publicity of taxation data does not mean that the provisions on the protection of private life would not apply in the processing of such information.
GR1 (Government): Publicly available taxation data must still be processed in accordance with data protection legislation.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the processing of such data must meet the criteria laid down in EU legislation.
GR1 (Government): The core element of the Sata Media case was clearly illustrated in the so-called Google versus Spain judgment.
GR1 (Government): The court of justice stated that operator Google was obliged to remove links from the list of links following a search made on the basis of a person's name, even when the publication itself on pages is lawful.
GR1 (Government): The case is essentially about balancing the applicant companies' alleged right to freedom of expression against the private life of those individuals whose personal data has been processed by the applicant companies.
GR1 (Government): Those individuals, a number of which requested the data protection ombudsman to investigate the processing and intervene in it.
GR1 (Government): The balancing, as the Supreme Administrative Court stated, was part of assessing whether the applicant companies' activities fulfilled the requirements set for processing of personal data in the Personal Data Act.
GR1 (Government): Section 2, subsection 5 of the Personal Data Act provides the requirements which the processing of the data for journalistic purposes has to meet.
GR1 (Government): The said provision implements Article 9 of the European Data Protection Directive.
GR1 (Government): Article 9 provides that EU member states shall provide for exemptions or derogations from the provisions of the directive for the processing of personal data, which is carried out solely for journalistic purposes, only if they are necessary to reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing freedom of expression.
GR1 (Government): The Court of Justice found that the purpose of this said article is to balance two fundamental rights, the protection of privacy and freedom of expression.
GR1 (Government): The Court of Justice further stated that the activities of the applicant companies can be regarded as processing of personal data for journalistic purposes if the sole purpose of such activities has been the imparting of information, opinions, and thoughts to the public.
GR1 (Government): Has this been the case is a matter for the domestic courts to assess.
GR1 (Government): As the Supreme Administrative Court stated, taking into account the guidance received from the Court of Justice, the starting point must be the assessing of whether the purpose of the activities is the imparting of information, opinions, and thoughts to the public.
GR1 (Government): The assessment should take into account assessing the extent to which the activities have promoted socially interesting debate rather than have aimed to satisfy the curiosity of individual persons.
GR1 (Government): Turning to this assessment, it should be noted at the outset that Veropörssi is actually a printed list.
GR1 (Government): In addition to this, one of the applicant companies has provided an SMS service for which the other applicant company disclosed taxation information until an unspecified date.
GR1 (Government): As to the content of the publication, the information was listed in alphabetical order.
GR1 (Government): Basically, no conclusions were drawn from the listed information.
GR1 (Government): The small introductions explaining the contents of the listed information cannot be considered as conclusions.
GR1 (Government): In any case, the small writings referred to by the applicant companies represent only a fraction of the information published.
GR1 (Government): The vast majority of the publication is listings of taxation data.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the so-called income limits are considerably low.
GR1 (Government): The lowest income limit used is 12,000 euros when the average yearly income in Finland was approximately 25,000 euros.
GR1 (Government): The information published included a large group of very ordinary people.
GR1 (Government): Thus, it is obvious that the publishing activities in the aforementioned manner and extent did not contribute to public debate in a way that would override the public interest of protecting the processing of personal data and the persons concerned.
GR1 (Government): As the Supreme Administrative Court stated, such processing of personal data where a personal data file compiled for journalistic purposes is published to a large extent, almost as a whole, and almost as such, be it in separate issues and divided by municipalities, is published as separate catalogs, cannot be considered as processing of personal data for journalistic purposes.
GR1 (Government): As the publishing of registered data in this extent is comparable to the publishing of the so-called background register of a company compiled for journalistic purposes, the question is not solely of imparting information, opinions, or ideas.
GR1 (Government): Similarly, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the disclosing of the aforementioned information to Sata Media Oy could not be considered as being done in journalistic purpose.
GR1 (Government): Neither was the disclosing of the information in the SMS service.
GR1 (Government): Contrary to what the applicant companies argue, the assessment was made not only based on the amount of published information or the quantity of it, but also on the manner of publishing the information.
GR1 (Government): The publishing activities of the applicant companies mainly satisfied the curiosity of the reader.