Tokens: 29
.
Finally
,
the
taxpayers
of
Finland
had
little
or
nothing
in
the
way
of
expectations
as
regards
privacy
concerning
the
information
published
.
It
is
an
unequivocal
requirement
under
this
Court
’s
case
-
law
that
there
be
a
“
legitimate
expectation
of
protection
of
and
respect
for
his
or
her
private
life
”
in
order
for
freedom
of
expression
to
“
cede
to
the
requirements
of
Article
8
”
(
see
Von
Hannover
v.
Germany
(
no
.
2
)
[
GC
]
,
nos
.
40660/08
and
60641/08
,
§
97
,
ECHR
2012
)
.
Moreover
,
it
is
mandatory
that
“
the
information
at
stake
is
of
a
private
and
intimate
nature
and
there
is
no
public
interest
in
its
dissemination
”
(
see
Couderc
and
Hachette
Filipacchi
Associés
,
cited
above
,
§
89
;
and
Mosley
v.
the
United
Kingdom
,
no
.
48009/08
,
§
131
,
10
May
2011
)
.
The
information
published
in
the
present
case
was
already
accessible
to
everyone
and
was
not
of
an
“
intimate
”
nature.[18
]
Thus
,
to
extend
to
the
present
case
rules
specifically
designed
in
Von
Hannover
and
Couderc
and
Hachette
Filipacchi
Associés
to
cover
cases
concerning
the
dissemination
of
“
intimate
”
information
that
has
caused
individualised
harm
is
a
gross
misapplication
of
the
Court
’s
principles
.
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