Finland vs Sweden: transparency laws
Transparency Laws in Finland and Sweden – An Overview
Finland
Finland’s transparency law is primarily governed by the Act on the Openness of Government Activities (1999).
The law guarantees public access to official documents and government records.
Transparency is a constitutional right under the Finnish Constitution, emphasizing openness as a basic principle of government activity.
Exceptions exist to protect privacy, national security, and ongoing investigations.
Sweden
Sweden’s law on transparency is based on the Freedom of the Press Act (1766)—one of the oldest freedom of information laws worldwide.
It grants broad access to official documents and emphasizes that public authorities should be open.
The principle of offentlighetsprincipen (the principle of publicity) is deeply embedded in Swedish governance.
Like Finland, exceptions protect privacy, defense interests, and other sensitive matters.
Case Law Examples
Finland: Key Cases
1. Supreme Administrative Court of Finland – KHO 1997:93
Context: A citizen requested access to documents related to municipal land development plans.
Issue: The municipality denied access citing privacy concerns and internal deliberations.
Decision: The Court ruled that documents related to public planning must be accessible as the public interest in transparency outweighed privacy concerns.
Significance: This case reinforced that transparency extends to local government decisions, and exceptions must be narrowly construed.
2. Supreme Administrative Court of Finland – KHO 2009:85
Context: Access was requested to police documents concerning ongoing investigations.
Issue: Whether access to documents would jeopardize investigation integrity.
Decision: The Court upheld refusal for documents where access would interfere with law enforcement.
Significance: Affirmed that transparency does not override active law enforcement needs and national security concerns.
3. Supreme Administrative Court of Finland – KHO 2011:98
Context: Access to emails exchanged between government officials during decision-making.
Issue: Whether internal communication falls under the transparency act.
Decision: The Court ruled emails are generally public documents unless specifically exempted.
Significance: Strengthened the principle that informal communications linked to government decisions are subject to openness.
Sweden: Key Cases
4. Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden (Regeringsrätten) – NJA 2003 s. 254
Context: Request for documents relating to environmental permits issued by a government agency.
Issue: Whether sensitive environmental data should be withheld.
Decision: The Court held that unless disclosure would cause significant harm, documents should be disclosed.
Significance: This case balanced environmental protection with transparency, emphasizing public's right to information on government actions.
5. Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden – NJA 1999 s. 651
Context: A journalist requested internal memoranda of a public authority.
Issue: Whether internal working documents are exempt from disclosure.
Decision: The Court ruled that internal documents used in decision-making are public unless specifically exempted.
Significance: This case affirmed the wide scope of offentlighetsprincipen covering internal government communications.
6. Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden – NJA 2012 s. 666
Context: Access to government communications with private contractors.
Issue: Whether documents involving third parties are public.
Decision: The Court ruled documents are public, but personal data or trade secrets may be exempted.
Significance: Clarified transparency boundaries when private parties are involved.
7. Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden – NJA 2016 s. 444
Context: Request for documents related to government surveillance programs.
Issue: National security vs. public interest in transparency.
Decision: Court upheld partial withholding due to security concerns but emphasized need for maximum transparency.
Significance: Highlighted delicate balance between openness and security in transparency law.
Summary of Key Differences & Similarities:
Both countries provide strong legal protections for public access to government documents.
Both recognize exceptions but require these to be interpreted narrowly.
Finland has a more recent codified law with detailed provisions, whereas Sweden’s framework is older but deeply embedded.
Case law from both countries shows courts emphasize transparency but recognize legitimate exceptions such as privacy, security, and commercial confidentiality.
Internal government communications are generally considered public in both countries unless specifically exempted.
RELATED Blog
0 comments