Tokens: 19
.
To
begin
with
,
this
case
presumes
that
the
Finnish
Parliament
acted
within
its
margin
of
appreciation
when
providing
such
a
degree
of
public
access
to
taxation
data
(
regardless
of
the
fact
that
Finland
is
one
of
the
very
few
members
of
the
Council
of
Europe
that
does
so
)
.
This
Court
has
previously
attached
great
importance
to
the
quality
of
parliamentary
review
of
the
necessity
of
legislation
restricting
rights
(
see
Animal
Defenders
International
v.
the
United
Kingdom
[
GC
]
,
no
.
48876/08
,
§
§
108
and
110
,
ECHR
2013
(
extracts)).[10
]
In
this
case
,
the
majority
considers
the
parliamentary
review
conducted
by
the
Finnish
Parliament
to
be
“
exacting
and
pertinent
”
(
§
193
of
the
judgment
)
.
However
,
it
is
contradictory
to
grant
a
wide
margin
of
appreciation
to
the
Finnish
authorities
to
pass
a
law
because
of
its
democratic
legitimacy
while
also
granting
that
margin
of
appreciation
to
domestic
courts
to
limit
the
scope
of
what
has
been
democratically
debated
and
passed
.
Where
a
balance
between
competing
interests
has
already
been
struck
by
the
legislature
,
this
Court
would
contradict
its
own
position
expressed
in
the
Animal
Defenders
doctrine
by
encouraging
the
disregard
of
national
democratic
choices
,
especially
if
the
sole
reason
for
granting
the
margin
of
appreciation
in
the
first
place
was
the
quality
of
parliamentary
review.[11
]
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O