COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Finland Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Finland, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 325 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Finland Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report      The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The Finnish justice system is characterised by a consistently high level of perceived judicial 
independence  among  both  businesses  and  the  general  public.  The  recent  creation  of  an 
independent  National  Courts  Administration,  which  has  taken  over  tasks  concerning  the 
management  of  the  courts  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  since  January  2020,  aims  at  further 
strengthening  the  independence  of  the  judiciary.  In  addition,  a  recent  restructuring  of  the 
National  Prosecution  Service  aims  at  improving  its  effectiveness  and  consistency  in 
prosecution  practices.  Certain  challenges  regarding  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system 
remain. 

According to surveys, Finland is perceived as one of the least corrupt countries in the EU and 
the  world.  The  country  relies  on  an  administrative  culture  of  transparency  and  openness  in 
order to combat corruption. Finnish public institutions have built a reputation for transparent 
administration  and  a  reliable  and  functional  corruption  prevention  framework.  Setting  up  a 
dedicated Government strategy to fight corruption has been under discussion for several years 
but its adoption is still pending. There are currently no specific rules to regulate contacts of 
top  executive  functions  with  third  parties  and  lobbyists  and  there  are  no  reporting  or 
disclosure  requirements  applicable  to  those  who  seek  to  influence  Government  actions  and 
policies.  However,  work  on  measures  for  increasing  ethics  and  transparency  is  ongoing. 
Finland  is  currently  taking  steps  with  regard  to  regulating  lobbying  and  limiting  ‘revolving 
doors’. In March 2020, a parliamentary Working Group was set up to establish a transparency 
register  related  to  lobbying  with  the  aim  to  supplement  the  legislation  on  openness  of 
Government and strengthen administrative transparency. 

A high level of press freedom in Finland is internationally recognised. The tasks and powers 
of  the  media  regulatory  authority  are  ensured  by  law,  although  it  reports  some  challenges 
regarding  resources.  While  no  media-specific  rules  governing  transparency  of  media 
ownership  currently  exist,  a  reasonable  level  of  transparency  exists  in  practice  through 
voluntary  disclosures  and  general  publicity  rules  for  limited  liability  companies.  The 
Government  is  considering  a  reform  for  further  extending  the  constitutionally  guaranteed 
access to documents. In addition, the Government has started to reflect on measures to protect 
journalists  more  effectively  from  unlawful  threats  and  targeting  online,  a  phenomenon 
detected in recent years. No physical threats towards journalists have been reported. 

The process for enacting legislation involves a multi-step procedure with impact assessment 
and  consultation  procedures.  For  recent  reforms  relating  to  the  justice  system,  an  inclusive 
process involving the judiciary has been followed. Furthermore, a reform process is currently 
ongoing  to  clarify  the  partially  overlapping  mandates  of  the  Chancellor  of  Justice  and  the 
Ombudsman,  two  key  independent  authorities  involved  in  safeguarding  fundamental  rights. 
In this regard, a legislative proposal is planned to be presented to Parliament in autumn 2020. 
A National Democracy Programme has been launched to further improve the framework for 
civil society and participatory democracy. 

1 

 
 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  
The Finnish justice system is composed of the ordinary judiciary, with 20 district courts1, five 
courts  of  appeal  and  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  administrative  judiciary  with  six  regional 
administrative  courts  and  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court.  There  are  three  specialised 
courts2. The independent National Courts Administration is in charge of the administration of 
courts,  including  management  of  budgets,  buildings  and  ICT  systems3.  The  independent 
Judicial  Appointments  Board4  prepares  proposals  for  appointments  of  judges  to  the 
Government, while proposals for Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court judges 
are made by these courts themselves5. Judges are formally appointed by the President of the 
Republic6.  The  National  Prosecution  Authority  is  an  independent  state  authority7,  led  by  a 
Prosecutor  General,  who  is  appointed  by  the  President  on  the  proposal  of  the  Ministry  of 
Justice and can be dismissed or suspended by the Government8. The Finnish Bar Association 
is the public body tasked with the professional supervision of lawyers9. 

Independence  

The  Finnish  justice  system  is  characterised  by  a  very  high  level  of  perceived 
independence.  The  perceived  independence  of  courts  and  judges  is  consistently  very  high, 
with 84% of the general public and 85% of companies perceiving it as ‘fairly or very good’ – 
these figures  have been  stable, with  slight  improvements since 2016 for  the general  public. 
For companies, they have been stable at a high level since 201010. Even with these high levels 
of  perceived  independence  of  the  judiciary,  Finland  has  recently  undertaken  reforms  to 
further strengthen structural safeguards for judicial independence.  

A new independent body has been established to safeguard judicial independence. The 
National  Courts  Administration,  which  has  taken  office  in  January  2020,  is  an  independent 
agency  responsible  for  the  administration  of  the  courts,  taking  over  functions  previously 
exercised  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice.  It  was  established  through  amendments  to  the  Courts 
Act adopted in February 201911 and it is independent from the Ministry of Justice. The aim of 

1   The number of district courts was reduced from 27 to 20 in 2019, to allocate workload and resources more 

evenly between district courts. 

2   The  Market Court,  the  Labour Court and the Insurance Court.  CEPEJ (2020), Study on the functioning of 

judicial systems in the EU Member States. 

3   Courts Act, Chapter 19a, National Courts Administration. 
4   It  has  twelve  members  –  nine  judges  from  different  levels  of  courts,  proposed  by  the  judiciary,  and  three 
non-judge  members  (one  lawyer,  one  prosecutor,  one  member  representing  legal  research  and  education). 
All members are appointed by the Government for a five year term.  

5   All judges of the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court participate to the selection. Courts Act, 

Chapter 11, Section 7.  

6   Only  one  candidate  is  proposed  per  vacancy.  While  the  proposal  is  non-binding,  in  practice,  it  is  almost 
always  followed,  with  only  one  exception  each  for  ordinary  court  judges  (in  2000,  the  year  the  Judicial 
Appointments Board was established) and for Supreme Court judges (in the 1970s).  

7   Act on the National Prosecution Authority (32/2019), Chapter 1, Section 2.  
8   The decision to dismiss can be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.  
9   Advocates Act (496/1958).   
10   Figures  44,  46  and  48,  2020  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is 
categorised as follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good 
and  very  good);  low  (between  30-39%),  average  (between  40-59%),  high  (between  60-75%),  very  high 
(above 75%). 

11   Courts Act, Chapter 19a, National Courts Administration.  

2 

 
 
                                                 
the reform, which was carried out in close consultation with the judiciary12, is to strengthen 
the  structural  autonomy  and  independence  of  the  courts,  reinforce  the  quality  of  the 
administration  of  justice  and  allow  courts  to  focus  on  their  key  functions  instead  of  on 
administrative  tasks13.  The  powers  of  the  National  Courts  Administration  include  making 
proposals on the allocation of the budget of courts to the Ministry of Justice and deciding on 
its allocation to individual courts, monitoring courts’ performance, managing court buildings 
and ICT systems and organising training for judges and other court personnel (in cooperation 
with the Judicial Training Board14). It is also in charge of establishing positions at the courts, 
both  for  judges  and  for  other  personnel.  The  decision-making  body  of  the  Courts 
Administration is the Board of Directors, which consists of eight members (six judges from 
all different instances of courts and two non-judge members15), appointed by the Government 
on  proposal  by  the  judiciary  (for  the  judges-members),  meaning  that  a  majority  of  its 
members are judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary, which is consistent 
with  Council  of  Europe  recommendations16.  The  National  Courts  Administration  has  also 
been  accepted  as  a  full  member  by  the  European  Network  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary  in 
June 202017. 

Quality  

The structure of the prosecution service has been reformed to improve its effectiveness. 
As  of  September  2019,  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  and  eleven  local  prosecution 
offices  have  been  merged  into  a  single  National  Prosecution  Authority18.  This  reform  is 
intended  to  enable  the  Prosecutor  General  to  supervise  more  consistently  the  uniformity  of 
the  prosecution  practices  and  centralise  administrative  functions  as  well  as  certain  criminal 
proceedings19.  In  addition,  it  facilitates  transfers  of  cases  between  districts  to  balance 
workloads.  The  reform  has  also  created  a  fixed  term  of  office  for  the  District  Chief 
Prosecutors (five  years) as well as the new title of ‘Specialised Prosecutor’. The number of 
prosecutors and their tasks and powers, including those of the Prosecutor General20, are not 
affected by this reform. 

Certain challenges remain as regards the digitalisation of the justice system. The online 
availability  of  judgments  remains  limited,  in  particular  for  first-instance  judgments21. 

12   The  preparatory  process  started  in  2013  and  involved  a  preparatory  commission  and  a  comprehensive 

consultation process; Ministry of Justice, Project for the establishment of a judicial office.  

13   Input from Finland for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 6.  
14   The  Judicial  Training  Board  is  responsible  for  arranging  judicial  training.  It  is  composed  of  six  judges,  a 
prosecutor,  a  lawyer,  a  member  representing  legal  research  and  education,  and  a  member  representing  the 
National Courts Administration. Courts Act, Chapter 21.  

15   One  Supreme  Court  judge  nominated  by  the  Supreme  Court,  one  Supreme  Administrative  Court  judge 
nominated by the Supreme Administrative Court, one judge each from the courts of appeal, district courts, 
administrative  courts  and  special  courts  (nominated  by  the  chief  judges  of  these  courts  following  an 
expression-of-interest  procedure);  one  member  representing  other  court  personnel  nominated  by  the  chief 
judges  after  consultation  of  the  employees  organisations  and  one  member  with  special  expertise  in  the 
management of public administration. Courts Act, Chapter 19a, Section 8.  

16   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, paras. 26-27. 
17   ENCJ, National Court Administration of Finland joins ENCJ.  
18   Act on the National Prosecution Authority (32/2019).   
19   Information received in the context of the country visit to Finland and input from Finland for the 2020 Rule 

of Law Report, p. 7. 

20   The Prosecutor General has wide-ranging powers, including to transfer without consent, to take decisions on 
disciplinary  measures  and  the  removal  of  individual  cases  assigned  to  a  prosecutor.  Figure  56,  2019  EU 
Justice Scoreboard.  

21   Figure 28, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

3 

 
 
                                                 
Furthermore, arrangements for ensuring that judgments are published in a machine-readable 
format  are  limited22.  While  case  law  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Supreme  Administrative 
Court  and  to  a  lesser  degree  the  courts  of  appeal  and  special  courts  is  published  on  a 
Government website, this is not the case for the district courts. In addition, while it is possible 
to both submit a case and transmit summons online, there is no possibility to follow stages of 
proceedings  online23. Case management systems  exists  in all courts and are currently being 
modernised,  also  to  improve  data  collection24.  However,  tools  for  producing  court  activity 
statistics currently only exist in about half of the courts25.   

The services offered by state legal aid offices have been expanded and it is now possible 
to receive certain services remotely. Certain services, such as financial and debt counselling 
services,  were  previously  handled  at  the  municipal  level  and  are  now  carried  out  by  state 
legal  aid  offices  to  help  ensure  consistent  delivery  of  services  across  the  country26.  In 
addition, preparation of an on-call legal aid service began at the Ministry of Justice in June 
2019. This project aims to establish an electronic system that provides legal aid effectively in 
a remote manner. The on-call system guarantees that a suspect or an injured party will get a 
legal counsel also outside normal business hours27.  

The  new  National  Courts  Administration  has  played  an  important  role  in  supporting 
courts  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  While  Finnish  courts  did  not  close  down  fully 
during the COVID-19 pandemic, their activity was affected28. In this situation, the National 
Courts Administration provided support to the courts, by developing guidelines on the use of 
teleconferencing  to  replace  physical  hearings,  on  when  hearings  should  be  cancelled  or 
postponed and on arrangements for social distancing inside courthouses29. The importance of 
this support has also been highlighted by the judiciary30.  

Efficiency 

The  justice  system  manages  its  caseload  efficiently.  The  justice  system  performs  at  an 
average  level  when  it  concerns  the  estimated  time  to  resolve  both  litigious  civil  and 
commercial  cases  and  administrative  cases.  The  clearance  rate  for  the  former  category  has 
decreased somewhat  since 2016, but  still remains above 100%, while the clearance rate for 
administrative  cases  has  shown  clear  improvements,  going  from  79%  in  2016  to  112%  in 
2018.  The  number  of  pending  cases  is  particularly  low  for  litigious  civil  and  commercial 

22   Figures 28 and 29, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.   
23   Figure 27, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
24   Two  development  projects  for  general  courts  and  administrative  courts  are  ongoing,  which  also  aim  at 
providing better data, to allow to target allocation of resources and find targets for improvement. Input from 
Finland for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 10.  

25   Figure 40, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
26   Oikeus.fi, Financial and debt counselling, and information received in the context of the country visit.  
27   Ministry of Justice, Emergency system: Project to define a legal aid on-call system.  
28   Statistics  on  the  number  of  suspended  cases  regularly  provided  by  the  National  Courts  Administration 
counted  around  6 000  criminal  cases,  1.300  civil  cases  and  300  cases  in  the  courts  of  appeals  that  were 
suspended as of June 2020. National Courts Administration, Suspension Statistics. 

29   National Courts  Administration, Courts to remain open subject to new guidelines  for protecting customers 

and staff.  

30   Information received in the context of the country visit and statement by the Supreme Court and Supreme 

Administrative Court of 14 April 2020, A strong rule of law bears over the crisis.  

4 

 
 
                                                 
cases and average for administrative cases, showing that the justice system overall copes well 
with its caseload31.  

II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

While Finland has no separate anti-corruption agency, several different authorities and bodies 
are jointly responsible for the fight against corruption. The Ministry of Justice’s Department 
of  Criminal  Policy  and  Criminal  Law  oversees  preventive  efforts,  is  responsible  for 
international cooperation and administers the national Anticorruption Cooperation Network. 
The police has competences to investigate corruption and is generally trusted by the public. 
Measures for increasing ethics and transparency as well as regulating lobbying and ‘revolving 
doors’ are ongoing.  

Finland scores 86/100  in the Transparency International  Corruption Perception  Index 
and ranks 2nd in the European Union and 3rd globally32. 22% of respondents to the 2020 
Special  Eurobarometer  survey  on  corruption  consider  corruption  to  be  widespread  (EU 
average:  71%)  and  only  8%  of  people  feel  personally  affected  by  corruption  in  their  daily 
lives (EU average: 26%)33. As regards businesses, 37% of companies consider corruption to 
be  widespread  (EU  average:  63%)  and  13%  of  companies  consider  that  corruption  is  a 
problem when doing business (EU average: 37%). 38% of people find that there are enough 
successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average: 36%) while 53% 
of  companies  believe  that  people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are 
appropriately punished (EU average: 31%)34. 

Finland  has  the  legal  framework  to  combat  corruption  largely  in  place.  The  Criminal 
Code criminalises several bribery offences35 and several other laws include provisions related 
to  the  prevention  of  corruption36.  However,  the  criminalisation  of  trading  in  influence 
remains a matter of debate in the context of Criminal Code reform37. Although clear instances 
of corruption are not widespread, the most commonly encountered forms are the offering or 
acceptance of benefits38, conflicts of interests and favouritism, and the unethical contacts in 
preparation of decision-making39. While concerns about the acquittal rate of foreign bribery 
cases have been raised in international evaluations, Finland has organised dedicated trainings 
and enhanced awareness raising to address perceived procedural shortcomings in the police, 
prosecution and amongst judges.  

31   Figures 5-15, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
32   Transparency International (2020), 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index. 
33   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) on Corruption. 
34   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019), Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. 
35   The Criminal Code contains provisions against active and passive bribery, embezzlement, fraud, and abuse 
of office, and persons and companies can be held liable for offenses. Facilitation payments are prohibited, 
while  the  propriety  of  gifts  and  hospitality  depends  on  their  value,  the  intent  and  the  potential  benefit 
obtained. 

36   Public officials are  further  governed by  more  detailed provisions in the  Act on Public Officials in Central 
Government (1994/750), the Act on Parliamentary Civil Servants (1197/2003) and the Act on Civil Servants 
in  Local  Government  (304/2003).  Relevant  acts  in  corruption  prevention  are  also  the  Act  on  Public 
Contracts  (348/2007),  the  Competition  Act  (948/2011),  the  Act  on  a  Candidate’s  Election  Funding 
(273/2009), the Act on Political Parties (10/1969), the Act on the Taxation of Business Profits and Income 
from  Professional  Activity  (360/1968),  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act  (808/2019),  the  Act  on  Equality 
between Women and Men (609/1986) and the Non-discrimination Act (1325/2014). 

37   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, para. 12. 
38   Without this necessarily reaching the threshold for bribery. 
39   Input from Finland for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

5 

 
 
                                                 
A draft anti-corruption strategy 2017-2021, submitted to the Ministry of Justice in 2017, 
has yet to be adopted by the Government. After the strategy failed to be adopted before the 
resignation of the previous Government, a Ministerial working group on the rule of law and 
internal  security  under  the  new  Government  has  launched  the  preparation  of  a  subsequent 
strategy against corruption for 2020-2023, which will build on the previous draft and plans to 
clarify  authorities’  responsibilities  to  increase  co-operation.  The  previous  draft  anti-
corruption  strategy  drafted  in  2016  focussed  on  six  main  themes,  including  strengthening 
structures  to  combat  corruption,  awareness  raising,  increasing  transparency,  facilitating  the 
exposure of corruption, developing legislation on bribery offences and promoting research on 
corruption.  The  upcoming 
into  account  anti-corruption 
recommendations  addressed  to  Finland  by  international  evaluations.  In  addition,  the 
evaluation  of  legislative  changes  on  the  protection  of  whistleblowers  is  ongoing  under  the 
Ministry of Justice40.  

strategy  aims 

take 

to 

Several  different  authorities  are  jointly  responsible  for  efforts  to  combat  corruption. 
The  Ministry  of  Justice’s  Department  of  Criminal  Policy  and  Criminal  Law  oversees 
preventive  efforts,  is  responsible  for  international  cooperation  and  administers  the  national 
Anticorruption  Cooperation  Network41.  The  Network  coordinates  domestic  anti-corruption 
activities, promotes national strategies and policies, and is a forum for information exchange 
amongst  relevant  ministries  and  stakeholders42.  The  Ministry  of  Finance  is  the  main 
coordinating  authority  for  civil  service  ethics.  It  has  published  guidelines  for  Government 
officials on hospitality,  benefits  and  gifts,  including travel  and secondary employment. The 
National  Audit  Office  audits  central  Government  finances,  monitors  fiscal  policy,  and 
oversees political party and election campaign funding.  

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has competences to investigate corruption. 
The Police’s financial crimes units and the NBI have the powers to investigate corruption and 
a  National  Network  of  anti-bribery  and  corruption  specialists  increases  cooperation  and 
coordination.  In March  2020, 459 financial crime investigators  and 60 positions  supporting 
financial crime prevention within the NBI were reported. The National Prosecution Authority 
does  not  have  any  specialised  units,  but  all  prosecution  districts  have  specialised  financial 
crime  prosecutors  to  handle  bribery  offences.  Various  districts  also  have  prosecutors 
specialising  in  offences  committed  by  persons  in  public  office.  Official  statistics  show  that 
there is a low number of corruption-related offences reported in Finland.  

A Code of Conduct for civil servants and top executive functions is under preparation. 
With  regard  to  the  ethics  framework  for  civil  servants,  overall  principles  of  good 
administration are defined in several legislative acts43. Moreover, the Ministry of Finance is 
taking steps to prepare a Code of Conduct for persons entrusted with top executive functions, 
which was subject to a GRECO recommendation44. The draft Code of Conduct consolidates 
existing guidelines on values, general duties, secondary occupations, gifts and benefits. The 
draft includes a section covering specifically top executive functions’ obligations to declare 

40   Input from Finland for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 18.  
41   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, para. 37. 
42   It has two full-time staff members, with a yearly budget of approximately EUR 250 000. 
43   The current code of ethics consists in a series of ‘ethical guidelines’ found in the Act of Public Officials in 
Central Government, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Act on the Openness of Government Activities 
and the Criminal Code of Finland. 

44   Finland’s  situational  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  recommendations  issued  in  the  GRECO  Fifth 
Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report. The GRECO recommendation also referred to a code of conduct for 
ministers.  

6 

 
 
                                                 
assets, income, liabilities and interests. Conduct against the code will be considered as acting 
against the duties of a civil servant. Specific sanctions will apply in such cases, while certain 
violations  may  constitute  an  offence  sanctioned  in  the  criminal  code45.  The  new  Code  of 
Conduct is expected for the end of 2020 and will be binding for all civil servants, including 
persons  with  top  executive  functions.  Ministers  will  however  not  fall  under  its  scope,  the 
Prime  Minister’s  Office  remaining  in  charge  of  regulating  ethical  matters  for  members  of 
Government46.  

There  is  no  explicit  definition  of  conflict  of  interest  in  the  legislation.  The  Constitution 
states that a Minister shall not hold any other public office or undertake any other task, which 
may  obstruct  the  performance  of  their  duties  or  compromise  the  credibility  of  actions  as  a 
Minister. The Act on Public Officials in Central Government states that a civil servant may 
not demand, accept or receive any financial or other advantage if this reduces confidence in 
him or her or in an authority. The Administrative Procedure Act (Section 27) and the Act on 
Public Officials in Central Government also impose limitations, and the Ministry of Finance 
has  issued  detailed  guidelines  about  secondary  occupations.  Nonetheless,  despite  existing 
provisions, it has been recommended that a formal system for review of the declarations of 
ministers  and  disclosures  of  other  persons  entrusted  with  top  executive  functions  be 
established or enhanced47. 

Asset  disclosure  for  senior  Government  officials  is  regulated  by  the  Act  on  Public 
Officials in Central Government48. It states that, before appointment, the person must give 
an account of their business activities, holdings in companies and other property, as well as of  
other duties, relations and commitments that are relevant for whether the person qualifies for 
performing  the  tasks  required  in  office49.  Although  the  Ministry  of  Finance  has  issued 
detailed guidelines about asset disclosure, it has been recommended that Finland standardise 
asset  disclosure  requirements50.  In  its  evaluation,  the  Ministry  of  Finance  has  set  out  the 
measures needed to fulfil the recommendation and whether to widen the scope of reporting51. 
The expected changes could possibly come into effect in early 2021. 

Work on introducing a transparency register is ongoing. There are currently no specific 
rules  to  regulate  contacts  of  top  executive  functions  with  third  parties  and  lobbyists. 
Furthermore, there are no reporting or disclosure requirements applicable to those who seek 
to  influence  Government  actions  and  policies.  However,  in  March  2020,  a  parliamentary 
Working  Group  was  set  up  to  establish  a  transparency  register  related  to  lobbying.  The 
register,  which  will  supplement  the  legislation  on  openness  of  Government  and  strengthen 
administrative transparency, will be developed in consultation with civil society to improve 
the transparency of decision-making, and prevent undue influence. It will initially cover state-
level decision-making, but may later be extended to the municipal and regional governments. 

45   According  to  the  Act  on  Public  Officials  in  Central  Government,  the  applicable  sanctions  are  informal 
warning, written warning, notice and cancellation of a civil service relationship (depending of course on the 
gravity of the violation). 

46   Finland’s  situational  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  recommendations  issued  in  the  Fifth  Round 

Evaluation Report, p. 6. 

47   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation iii). 
48   Act of Public Officials in Central Government, Section 8 a. 
49   Act of Public Officials in Central Government, Section 18. 
50   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation v. 
51   The  option  proposed  is  to  amend  section  8  a  in  the  Act  on  Public  Officials  in  Central  Government  and 

consequently update the guidelines and the form regarding the disclosure. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
The  resulting  legislation,  expected  by  2023,  would  impose  a  registration  obligation  on 
lobbying organisations and individuals. 

Certain restrictions exist to limit ‘revolving doors’ and an extension to these measures is 
currently  being  prepared.  Post-employment  requirements  for  all  civil  servants  except 
ministers  were  introduced  by  law  in  2017.  The  Act  on  Public  Officials  in  Central 
Government includes a post-employment waiting period for top executive functions who are 
civil servants. Ministers are currently not covered by this requirement, but are subject to an 
Advisory Board for Civil Service Ethics recommendation to disclose any intention to assume 
other  duties  after  their  appointment  as  ministers52.  Moreover,  in  December  2019  the 
Government issued a resolution blocking ‘revolving doors’ for ministers. It requires ministers 
to  inform  the  Prime  Minister  and  Government’s  Advisory  Committee  about  a  possible 
transfer  to  another  position  during  the  minister’s  government  term  and  the  advisory 
committee  to  evaluate  whether  a  cooling  period  of  maximum  6  months  should  be 
recommended.  The  disclosure  commitment  is  only  applied  to  an  on-going  ministerial  term 
and  lapses  once  the  latter  has  come  to  an  end.  As  the  establishment  of  other  types  of 
restrictions has been deemed to require legislative action, a legislative project on this subject 
has been  commenced.  The aim is  to  lay down procedures to  prevent  and avoid  conflicts  of 
interest for members of the Government. The Government’s proposal is due to be submitted 
in  spring  2021.The  Ministry  of  Finance  is  now  evaluating  whether  the  general  guidelines 
need updating in respect of the GRECO recommendation to establish standards, procedures, 
and where necessary legislation, and if restriction periods for the highest civil servants should 
be extended to 12 months53.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

The tasks and powers of the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom), the 
media regulatory authority, are ensured by law. Finland has general publicity rules for limited 
liability  companies54.  No  media-specific  rules  governing  transparency  of  media  ownership 
exist  for  the  moment.  Access  to  public  documents  is  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution.  New 
legislation55 to protect journalists from unlawful threats and targeting has been proposed last 
year56. 

Following  a  recent  merger,  the  Finnish  Transport  and  Communications  Agency 
(Traficom) acts as the independent media regulatory body. The purpose of merger of the 
Finnish  Communications  Regulatory  Authority  (FICORA)  and  the  Finnish  Traffic  Safety 
Authority in  January 2019 was to  form  synergies  with  the governing Ministry of Transport 
and Communications and provide more services under the same roof. The tasks, powers and 
appointment procedures of the head and members of the collegiate body of the authority are 
defined by law57. The government appoints the Director General for a five-year term58. The 
Act on Public Officials in Central Government includes provisions on the termination of an 

52   Recommendation of the Advisory Board for Civil Service Ethics dated 22 September 2014. 
53   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report recommendation iv. 
54   Osakeyhtiölaki 624/2006. 
55   Lakialoite LA 33 2019 vp https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/Lakialoite/Sivut/LA_33+2019.aspx. 
56   Since  its  first  report  in  2002,  the  Reporters  Without  Borders’  annual  World  Press  Freedom  Index  has 

continuously placed Finland among the top five countries, currently occupying the second place.  
57   Act on the Transport and Communications Agency (Laki Liikenne- ja viestintävirastosta 935/2018). 
58   Section 9a of the Act on Public Officials in Central Government (Valtion virkamieslaki 750/1994) and point 
6  of  the  first  subsection  of  section  28  of  the  Decree  on  Public  Officials  in  Central  Government  (Valtion 
virkamiesasetus 971/1994). 

8 

 
 
                                                 
official’s  employment  relationship  and  they  are  also  applied  to  the  Director  General  of  the 
agency. Generally, the independence and effectiveness of Traficom appear to be very good, 
as analysed by the latest edition of the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM 2020). However, the 
agency reported that they have little possibilities to contribute effectively to the work of the 
European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) at the moment, due to 
limited resources59. The national  transposition of the Audiovisual  Media Services Directive 
(AVMSD)60 is currently in process. Besides Traficom, the National Audiovisual Institute is 
another  independent  government  media  body.  It  is  tasked  with  classifying  audiovisual 
programmes for the purpose of the protection of minors (the Act on the National Audiovisual 
Institute61). 

The  Finnish  Council  for  Mass  Media  (Julkisen  sanan  neuvosto)  is  a  self-regulating 
committee  established  by  publishers  and  journalists.  Its  purpose  is  to  interpret  good 
professional practice and defend the freedom of speech and publication. It also addresses the 
methods by which journalists acquire information. The Council is composed of 13 members 
and a chair and does not exercise legal  jurisdiction or public authority. The majority of the 
Finnish media have signed the Council’s Basic Agreement, whereby the Council can directly 
handle  any  complaints  that  concern  them.  In  limited  cases,  the  Council  can  also 
independently initiate an investigation62. 

There are no specific rules governing transparency of media ownership, but voluntary 
disclosure is common. General publicity rules for limited liability companies are applied to 
media  companies.  On  the  basis  of  the  Limited  Liability  Companies  Act63,  the  shareholder 
register is  to  be kept  accessible to  everyone at  the head office of the company. There is  no 
specific legislation concerning media ownership transparency or concentration. In exchanges 
with  the  Finnish  authorities,  it  appears,  however,  that  most  companies  voluntarily  disclose 
their ownership on their website. The Finnish authorities also report to be in the process of 
implementing  the  revised  AVMSD,  which  encourages  Member  States  to  adopt  legislative 
measures  providing  that  media  service  providers  under  their  jurisdiction  make  accessible 
information  concerning  their  ownership  structure.  The  Directive  is  envisaged  to  be 
implemented in the Act on Electronic Communication Services in autumn 2020. On the basis 
of the Government’s proposal, media service providers would be required to make publicly 
accessible information concerning their ownership structure. 

Finland  has  a  strong  tradition  of  transparency  in  government.  Access  to  public 
documents  is  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  and  the  Act  on  the  Openness  of  Government 
Activities64.  Every  Finnish  citizen  is  allowed  to  get  access  to  governmental  documents, 
unless,  for  compelling  reasons,  their  publication  has  been  specifically  restricted  by  an  act. 
The same section also protects the right to express, publish and receive information, opinions 
and  other  messages  without  anyone  preventing  it  in  advance,  irrespective  of  the  medium. 

59   It should be noted in this context that the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) requires 
Member States to ‘ensure that national regulatory authorities or bodies have adequate financial and human 
resources and enforcement powers to carry out their  functions effectively and to contribute to the  work of 
ERGA’. Article 30(4) of 2010/13/EU AVMSD, as revised by 2018/1808/EU. 

60   Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending 

Directive 2010/13/EU. 

61   Laki Kansallisesta audiovisuaalisesta Instituutista 1434/2007. 
62   Council for Mass Media website: http://www.jsn.fi/en/. 
63   Chapter 3, section 17 (Osakeyhtiölaki 624/2006). 
64   Section 12, subsection 2 of the Constitution and the Act on the Openness of the Government Activities (Laki 

viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta 621/1999). 

9 

 
 
                                                 
According  to  non-governmental  organisations  the  legal  framework  is  generally  good, 
ensuring that transparency rules are generally held up in court. This evaluation holds despite 
a  trend  in  recent  years  towards  a  stricter  interpretation  of  the  rules  by  some  authorities, 
including police and local government65. There may be fees which act as a barrier to access 
certain  public documents. The Finnish authorities state that the current  rules could  possibly 
be  reformed  in  the  future  in  light  of  the  changes  in  the  organisation  of  the  public  sector, 
where the state and municipalities have privatised their functions. For this purpose, a study 
has been commissioned by the Ministry of Justice on broadening the institutional scope of the 
Act66.  The  modernisation  of  the  rules  is  also  necessary  for  other  reasons,  such  as 
digitalisation.  The  current  Government  Programme  raises  the  need  to  re-evaluate  the 
institutional scope of the Act and to ensure that the principle of openness is materialised also 
in the future67. 

The  framework  for  protection  of  journalists  appears  robust.  Finland  has  not  taken  any 
specific  measures  based  on  the  Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  on  the  protection  of 
journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors68. However, since its first report in 
2002, the Reporters Without  Borders’ annual  World  Press  Freedom  Index has continuously 
placed  Finland  among  the  top  five  countries.  The  MPM  2020  notes  the  continued 
criminalisation  of  blasphemy  and  the  severe  punishments  issuable  for  (aggravated) 
defamation69.  Furthermore,  in  2019,  one  alert  was  published  in  the  Council  of  Europe’s 
Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  concerning 
defamation  charges  having  chilling  effects  on  media  freedom.  The  judgment  concerned  is 
under  appeal70.  The  criminal  provisions  on  defamation  and  dissemination  of  information 
violating  personal  privacy  were,  however,  amended  and  the  possibility  of  prison  sentences 
removed except in cases of ‘aggravated’ defamation in the Criminal Code in 2014 following 
cases in the European Court of Human Rights71. 

The government is reflecting on additional measures to protect journalists from online 
attacks. No physical  threats  against journalists have been reported in  Finland by  the MPM 
2020 or the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety 
of journalists. Online harassment campaigns exist, but in the last few years, actions have been 
taken to counter it, such as the new criminalisation of stalking in 201372. The Ministry of the 
Interior has set up a working group (for the period of 1 June 2020  – 31 December 2020) to 
address  the question how to  target  online attacks, how the policy  actions can be intensified 
and how to  give more effective protection to  the victims. Furthermore, education policy on 
the  protection  of  journalists  is  being  prepared73.  Feedback  from  non-governmental 
organisations  reveals  that  new  legislation  to  protect  journalists  from  unlawful  threats  and 

65   Information received in the context of the country visit e.g. The Union of Finnish Journalists, Finnish Media 

Association and the Council for Mass Media. 

66   Input from Finland for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 25. 
67   Programme  of  Prime  Minister  Sanna  Marin’s  Government  10  December  2019.  Inclusive  and  competent 

Finland – a socially, economically and ecologically sustainable society.  

68   Recommendation CM/REC(2016)4 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 
69   Media Pluralism Monitor 2020. 
70   Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Finland: Court 

Convicts Journalist Johanna Vehkoo on Defamation Charges.  

71   E.g.  Juppala  v.  Finland,  no. 18620/03, ECHR  2008  and  Ristamäki  and  Korvola  v.  Finland,  no. 66456/09, 

ECHR 2013. 

72   Criminal Code, Chapter 25, Section 7a. 
73   Input from Finland for the 2020 Rule of Law Report p. 25. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
targeting  has  been  proposed  last  year74  and  the  investigation  and  adjudication  of  these 
instances has improved. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Finland  is  a  unicameral,  parliamentary  democracy,  in  which  legislative  proposals  can 
emanate  from  Government  or  Parliament  (although  in  practice  most  laws  are  based  on 
Government  proposals).  In  the  absence  of  a  Constitutional  Court,  ex-ante  constitutionality 
review is carried out by the Chancellor of Justice and the Constitutional Law Committee of 
the Parliament. Moreover, all courts can carry out ex-post constitutionality review in concrete 
cases75.  The  Chancellor  of  Justice,  the  Human  Rights  Centre  and  the  Parliamentary 
Ombudsman play an important role in the system of checks and balances.  

An impact assessment framework and comprehensive consultation process are part of a 
particularly inclusive framework for enacting legislation.  The process for preparing and 
enacting  laws  is  described  in  the  ‘legislative  drafting  process  guide’76,  which  foresees  a 
multi-step  procedure,  including  a  preparatory  phase,  a  drafting  phase  including  an  impact 
assessment, and a consultation phase (minimum six weeks). A Council of Regulatory Impact 
Analysis  issues  statements  on  Government  proposals  and  impact  assessments.  If  broader-
based participation is required in the process, a separate preparatory body with stakeholders, 
representatives of ministries, experts and political decision-makers can be appointed. For the 
creation  of  the  National  Courts  Administration77,  such  a  preparatory  body,  which  included 
members  of  the  judiciary,  was  set  up.  For  a  recent  reform  of  the  Administrative  Judicial 
Procedure Act78, a network of stakeholders was involved in the preparatory process. 

Emergency powers were used in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and have been 
subject  to  constitutional  review.  The  Emergency  Powers  Act,  which  invests  the 
Government  with  a  number  of  powers  in  a  state  of  emergency,  was  applied  during  the 
COVID-19  pandemic,  between  16  March  and  16  June  202079  Decrees  adopted  by  the 
Government  based  on  these  powers  must  be  submitted  to  Parliament,  who  can  approve, 
change  or  reject  them.  The  Government  submitted  a  series  of  such  decrees  for  approval  to 
Parliament  during the COVID-19 pandemic80. This  included a review by the Constitutional 
Law Committee, a parliamentary committee81 that assesses the constitutionality of proposals 
submitted  to  Parliament,  which  provided  statements  on  all  decrees  adopted  under  the 
Emergency Powers Act and sometimes required amendments82. In addition, the Chancellor of 
Justice  is  reviewing  the  constitutionality  of  the  emergency  legislation  and  launched  at  least 

74   Lakialoite LA 33 2019 vp https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/Lakialoite/Sivut/LA_33+2019.aspx.  
75   According to Section 106 of the Constitution if in a case before a court, the application of an act would be in 

evident conflict with the Constitution, the court of law shall give primacy to the Constitution.  

76   Finnish Government, Legislative Drafting Process Guide.  
77   Ministry of Justice, Project for the establishment of a judicial office. 
78   Ministry of Justice, Administrative Procedure Act.  
79   The application of the Emergency Powers Act (1552/2011) is limited by law to maximum six months. The 
Government decided to withdraw its application on 15 June 2020, lifting the state of emergeny as of 16 June 
2020, and repealed all decrees adopted under it on the same date. 

80   The two first decrees were submitted to Parliament on 17 March 2020 and approved on 18 March 2020. 
81   The  committee  is  made  up  of  members  of  Parliament  and  regularly  hears  independent  experts  on 

constitutional law.  

82   See  e.g.  committee  report  2/2020  vp,  on  the  first  emergency  decree,  in  which  the  Constitutional  Law 
Committee considered the decree to be constitutional except for one provision regarding a work obligation 
for health workers, which was subsequently repealed.  

11 

 
 
                                                 
twelve  on-going  own-initiative  investigations  regarding  the  use  of  emergency  powers,  in 
which he has requested additional clarifications from the authorities83.  

that 

A  reform  process  has  been  initiated  to  clarify  the  mandates  of  different  independent 
the 
authorities  safeguarding  fundamental  rights.  The  Constitution  provides 
Chancellor of Justice and the Parliamentary Ombudsman are the two supreme  guardians of 
legality and fundamental rights, with similar and concurrent tasks to oversee the activities of 
public authorities and monitor the legality and rule of law in the exercise of public authority 
by  Government,  public  institutions  and  courts84,  although  some  specialisation  exists  in 
practice85. Additionally, since 2018, the Chancellor of Justice ensures prior legality review of 
draft  legislation  to  be  submitted  to  Parliament.  The  Parliamentary  Ombudsman  and  the 
Human  Rights  Centre  (and  its  delegation)  jointly  constitute  the  National  Human  Rights 
Institution,  re-accredited  with  A-Status  by  the  Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights 
Institutions in 2019. To bring clarity to the mandates of and division of competences between 
the  Parliamentary  Ombudsman  and  the  Chancellor  of  Justice,  the  Government  launched  a 
reform  process  in  2018  and  a  legislative  proposal  is  set  to  be  presented  to  Parliament  in 
autumn 202086. Both institutions have indicated their support for the reform and participated 
in the preparatory phase87.  

The National Democracy Programme aims at further improving the framework for civil 
society and participatory democracy. The civil society space in Finland is considered to be 
open88.  Several  mechanism  exists  to  involve  civil  society  in  the  decision-making  process, 
such  as  the  Advisory  Board  on  Civil  Society  Policy  (appointed  in  2017),  which  promotes 
interaction  between  public  authorities  and  civil  society.  However,  several  civil  society 
organisations  have  reported  that  on  some  occasions  consultations  are  carried  out  in  a 
formalistic  manner  or  late  in  the  process89.  The  National  Democracy  Programme  2025, 
launched in 2019, aims to improve the framework for participatory democracy, including the 
involvement  and  consultation  of  civil  society.  Furthermore,  the  Programme  is  meant  to 
strengthen  operating  conditions  of  the  civil  society  and  to  promote  democracy  and  human 
rights education90.  

83   Information received in the context of the country visit and statements by the Chancellor of Justice of 3 April 

and 19 May 2020.  

84   Both authorities can bring charges against a judge for unlawful conduct in office. 
85   The  Chancellor  of  Justice  is  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic  and  has  particular  responsibilities 
overseeing the activities of the Government. The Ombudsman is elected by the Parliament and has a wide 
remit in following up on complaints from citizens.  

86   Ministry  of  Justice,  Clarifying  and  evaluating  the  division  of  responsibilities  of  supreme  law  enforcement 

officers.  

87   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  and  the  consultation  process  for  the  report,  e.g. 
contribution from ENNHRI (European Network of National Human Rights Institutions) for the 2020 Rule of 
Law Report p. 83-84. 

88   Rating by CIVICUS; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed 

and closed.   

89   Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 87. 
90   Ministry of Justice, National Democracy Programme 2025.  

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law report 
can be found at (COM website). 

Anti-Corruption Finland, National legislation. https://korruptiontorjunta.fi/en/national-legislation.   

CEPEJ (2020), Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States. 

Chancellor  of  Justice  (3  April  2020),  Deputy  Chancellor  of  Justice  Puumalainen's  inquiries  in 
https://www.okv.fi/fi/tiedotteet-ja-

connection 
puheenvuorot/535/apulaisoikeuskansleri-puumalaisen-selvityspyynnot-covid-19-epidemian-
yhteydessa/.   

epidemic. 

Covid-19 

with 

the 

Chancellor of Justice (19 May 2020), Chancellor of Justice Tuomas Pöysti's requests for clarification 
https://www.okv.fi/fi/tiedotteet-ja-

in 
puheenvuorot/538/oikeuskansleri-tuomas-poystin-selvityspyynnot-covid-19-epidemian-
yhteydessa/.   

connection  with 

epidemic. 

Covid-19 

the 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor. 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.   

CIVICUS, Finland country profile, https://monitor.civicus.org/country/finland/.  

Committee 

report 

2/2020 

vp 

– 

M1/2020 

vp. 

https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/Mietinto/Sivut/PeVM_2+2020.aspx.  

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities.  

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2016),  Recommendation  CM/REC(2016)4  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists 
and other media actors. 

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists. 

https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/the-platform.  

Directorate General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502 on Corruption. 

European Commission (2019, 2020), EU Justice Scoreboard.  

ENCJ, National Court Administration of Finland joins ENCJ. https://www.encj.eu/node/560.  

European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (2020),  Contribution  from  the  European 
Network of National Human Rights Institutions the stakeholder consultation for the 2020 Rule of 
Law Report.  

Finnish Government (2020), Input from Finland for the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

Finnish Government, Legislative Drafting Process Guide. http://lainvalmistelu.finlex.fi/en/.  

GRECO (2018), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Finland on preventing corruption and 
promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law  enforcement 
agencies.  

Ministry 

Administrative 
Justice, 
https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/project?tunnus=OM014:00/2015.   

of 

procedure 

Act. 

Ministry  of  Justice,  Clarifying  and  evaluating  the  division  of  responsibilities  of  supreme  law 

enforcement officers. https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/project?tunnus=OM044:00/2018.    

Ministry 

of 

Justice, 

Emergency 

system. 

https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/project?tunnus=OM016:00/2019.  

Ministry of Justice, Finland’s situational report on the implementation of the recommendations issued 

in the Fifth Round Evaluation Report. 

13 

 
 
Ministry  of  Justice,  National  Democracy  Programme  2025.  https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/national-

democracy-programme-2025.   

Ministry 

Project 
https://oikeusministerio.fi/hanke?tunnus=OM001:00/2018.  

Justice, 

the 

for 

of 

establishment 

of 

a 

judicial 

office, 

National  Courts  Administration,  Courts  to  remain  open  subject  to  new  guidelines  for  protecting 
customers and staff. https://tuomioistuinvirasto.fi/en/index/ajankohtaista/2020/457pl2ptq.html.  

National 

Courts 

Administration, 

Suspension 

Statistics. 

https://tuomioistuinvirasto.fi/en/index/ajankohtaista/qwlqgymkm.html.  

Oikeus, 

Financial 

and 

debt 

counselling. 

https://oikeus.fi/oikeusapu/en/index/financial_and_debt_counselling.html.  

Programme  of  Prime  Minister  Sanna  Marin’s  Government  10  December  2019.  Inclusive  and 
competent  Finland  –  a  socially,  economically  and  ecologically  sustainable  society. 
http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161935.  

Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court (14 April 2020), A strong rule of law bears over 
the 
crisis. 
https://korkeinoikeus.fi/fi/index/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/2020/04/kkojakhovahvaoikeusvaltiokantaa
ylikriisiajan.html.  

Virtual country visit to Finland in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

14 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Finland 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in May and June 2020 with: 

  Chancellor of Justice 
  Constitutional Law Committee  
  Council for Mass Media  
  Finnish Judges’ Association 
  Finnish Media Association 
  Finnish Union of Journalists 
 
Judicial Appointments Board 
  Ministry for Foreign Affairs 
  Ministry of Justice  
  National Bureau of Investigation 
  National Courts Administration 
  Prime Minister’s Office 
  Prosecution Service 
  Supreme Court 
  Transparency International Finland  
  Transport and Communications Agency 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

15