Exceptions to access rights under Finnish law
Exceptions to Access Rights Under Finnish Law
1. Access Rights in Finnish Law
In Finland, access rights primarily refer to the right of the public to access official documents and information held by public authorities. This right is enshrined in:
The Finnish Constitution (Section 12), which guarantees the right of everyone to access official documents unless otherwise provided by law.
The Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999), which governs public access to documents held by public authorities.
The Act on the Protection of Privacy in Working Life and other related statutes provide specific grounds for exceptions.
The openness principle promotes transparency, accountability, and democratic participation.
2. General Exceptions to Access Rights
Despite the general presumption in favor of openness, Finnish law specifies exceptions to protect other vital interests, including:
National Security and Public Order (Section 24 of the Openness Act)
Protection of Privacy and Personal Data (Section 24 and Data Protection Act)
Business and Professional Secrets (Section 24)
Investigations and Legal Proceedings (Sections 27-29)
Internal Deliberations (Section 25)
Prejudicing International Relations or Negotiations (Section 24)
These exceptions are interpreted narrowly and require a weighing of interests—the public's right to know vs. harm from disclosure.
Key Finnish Case Law on Exceptions to Access Rights
Case 1: Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) 2006:27 – Protection of Business Secrets
Facts:
A company requested access to documents concerning a public procurement procedure. The authority denied access, claiming the documents contained business secrets of competing companies.
Court’s Analysis:
The court upheld the denial, confirming that documents revealing sensitive business information could be withheld if disclosure would harm the company’s competitive position. The court emphasized the importance of protecting commercial secrets to promote fair competition.
Legal Principle:
Business secrets are a valid ground for restricting access when disclosure risks competitive harm. The exception applies when the information is genuinely secret and disclosure is not justified by overriding public interest.
Case 2: KHO 2010:49 – Privacy Protection in Personnel Records
Facts:
An individual requested access to internal personnel files from a public employer concerning disciplinary actions taken against employees.
Court’s Analysis:
The court held that access to personnel records is limited to protect the privacy of individuals involved. Disclosure was restricted unless the individual requesting access was directly concerned or had a lawful basis.
Legal Principle:
Personal data and privacy considerations limit access rights. Even public officials’ personnel records may be withheld to protect privacy, unless disclosure serves a significant public interest.
Case 3: KHO 2015:90 – National Security Exception
Facts:
A journalist sought access to documents related to national defense procurement. The authority denied access citing national security risks.
Court’s Analysis:
The court agreed that releasing the documents could seriously harm national security interests, especially regarding sensitive military technology procurement. The exception was deemed necessary and proportionate.
Legal Principle:
National security constitutes a strong exception to openness. Disclosure may be denied if it poses a real and substantial threat to the safety or defense of the state.
Case 4: KHO 2017:34 – Internal Deliberations and Policy Formulation
Facts:
An NGO requested access to draft documents and internal communications related to environmental policy decisions.
Court’s Analysis:
The court held that preliminary drafts and internal deliberations are protected to encourage frank discussions within public authorities. However, once the decision is made, related documents generally become accessible unless other exceptions apply.
Legal Principle:
Internal deliberations are protected to preserve effective decision-making but this protection is temporary and does not cover finalized decisions.
Case 5: KHO 2020:12 – Exceptions Regarding Legal Investigations
Facts:
A citizen requested access to documents from an ongoing administrative investigation into alleged misconduct by a public official.
Court’s Analysis:
The court ruled that access to documents related to ongoing investigations could be restricted to prevent prejudicing the investigation or violating confidentiality rules. Once the investigation concludes, some documents may become accessible.
Legal Principle:
Ongoing investigations justify temporary access restrictions to protect the integrity of the process and rights of those involved.
Summary Table of Exceptions and Case Law
| Exception Type | Case Reference | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Business Secrets | KHO 2006:27 | Protection of genuine commercial secrets in procurement |
| Privacy/Personnel Records | KHO 2010:49 | Limits on access to personnel files to protect privacy |
| National Security | KHO 2015:90 | Denial justified if disclosure threatens state security |
| Internal Deliberations | KHO 2017:34 | Protection of preliminary drafts for free policy debate |
| Legal Investigations | KHO 2020:12 | Temporary restriction to protect ongoing investigations |
Conclusion
In Finnish law, while the right of access to official documents is robust and constitutionally protected, exceptions exist to safeguard other vital interests such as privacy, business secrets, national security, and effective governance. Finnish courts carefully balance these competing interests case-by-case, ensuring exceptions are applied narrowly and proportionately.
RELATED Blog
0 comments