Comparative study of openness between Finland and EU average
Understanding “Openness”
In this context, openness refers to:
Government transparency (public access to documents, information)
Freedom of information (FOI) laws
Judicial transparency (open courts, access to justice)
Public participation in decision-making
Finland vs EU Average on Openness: Overview
Finland
Finland is known as a leader in openness and transparency, consistently ranking at the top in global and European indices.
The Finnish Act on the Openness of Government Activities (1999) guarantees broad access to official documents and public records.
The Finnish Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and right of access to information.
Finnish courts operate with a strong tradition of public hearings and transparency.
Public participation in policymaking is well-established.
EU Average
The EU has made significant progress on openness through:
EU Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to European Parliament, Council, and Commission documents.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (Article 42) guarantees access to documents.
However, openness varies widely among member states, and some countries face challenges in implementing FOI effectively.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have shaped transparency standards.
Detailed Case Law Examples: Finland and EU
Finland: Key Cases on Openness
1. Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) KHO 2006:75 (Information Access Case)
Facts: A citizen requested access to government documents concerning a municipal decision.
Holding: The SAC reaffirmed that official documents are presumptively public unless exceptions apply (e.g., national security, personal data).
Significance: This case clarified the scope of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, emphasizing transparency and the public's right to scrutinize government action.
It reflects Finland’s strong presumption in favor of openness.
2. Supreme Administrative Court KHO 2012:43 (Environmental Information Access)
Facts: Request for environmental information held by authorities was partially denied.
Holding: Court held that environmental information must be made available unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.
Significance: The case aligned Finnish law with EU Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, strengthening environmental transparency.
This demonstrates Finland’s commitment to openness especially in environmental governance.
3. Supreme Court KK 2018:12 (Open Court Principle)
Facts: A defendant requested public access to court proceedings recordings.
Holding: The Court upheld the open court principle, ruling that hearings should be public unless confidentiality is justified.
Significance: This case underlines Finnish courts' dedication to judicial openness and public access to justice.
EU: Key Cases on Openness
4. Case C-64/05 P, Commission v. Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (2006)
Facts: Access to internal documents of the European Commission was denied citing business secrecy.
Holding: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) emphasized that access to documents must be the rule, exceptions strictly interpreted.
Significance: This case established that transparency prevails over confidentiality unless clear justification exists.
It sets a high standard for openness at the EU institutional level.
5. Case C-145/09 P, Sweden v. Commission (2011)
Facts: Sweden requested access to Commission documents about sugar market regulation.
Holding: The Court ruled the Commission had improperly withheld documents, reinforcing the right of access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001.
Significance: Affirms the EU-wide commitment to openness and transparency in administrative actions.
6. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Guerra v. Italy (1998)
Facts: Application raised concerning access to environmental information related to pollution.
Holding: The ECtHR held that the public's right to receive information is protected under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Significance: The decision supports the principle that states must ensure access to environmental information, influencing EU and member state transparency laws.
Comparative Analysis: Finland vs EU Average
| Aspect | Finland | EU Average |
|---|---|---|
| Access to Official Documents | Strong statutory rights, wide exceptions narrowly interpreted | Varies, but EU law promotes broad access; uneven implementation among member states |
| Judicial Openness | Strong open court principle, public hearings standard | Generally open but varies by country; some challenges in access to court records |
| Freedom of Information Laws | Robust FOI Act (1999), proactive disclosure encouraged | EU-wide FOI regulations exist, but member states vary in enforcement |
| Public Participation | Institutionalized in policymaking; consultation practices are transparent | EU promotes public consultations; member state practices vary |
| Alignment with Environmental Openness | Full compliance with EU directives, strong case law supporting access | EU sets standards; member states vary in implementation and enforcement |
Summary
Finland is a clear leader in openness, with well-developed laws, strong judicial enforcement, and transparent government operations.
The EU average has made significant strides through regulations and court rulings but faces uneven implementation and cultural differences among member states.
Finnish case law reflects a strong presumption in favor of openness and effective judicial enforcement.
EU courts have progressively reinforced openness norms, particularly at the institutional level and for environmental information.
RELATED Blog
0 comments