Right to privacy in administrative surveillance
Right to Privacy in Administrative Surveillance:
1. Legal Framework and Background
The right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under:
Finnish Constitution (Section 10): Protects personal integrity and privacy.
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 7 & 8): Right to privacy and data protection.
Personal Data Act (now under GDPR implementation) and Coercive Measures Act: Regulate administrative surveillance and data processing.
Administrative Procedure Act: Ensures lawful, proportionate, and necessary administrative actions.
Administrative surveillance includes activities like:
Monitoring communications,
Video surveillance in public spaces,
Collection of personal data by administrative bodies,
Use of electronic devices for data gathering.
Balancing public interest (e.g., security, crime prevention) with individual privacy is central.
2. Principles Governing Administrative Surveillance and Privacy
Legality: Surveillance must have a clear legal basis.
Necessity and proportionality: Measures must be necessary and proportionate to the objective.
Transparency: Affected individuals have the right to information and remedies.
Data protection: Personal data collected must be securely handled and used only for lawful purposes.
3. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: Supreme Administrative Court, 2006 – Video Surveillance in Public Spaces
Background: A municipality installed video cameras in a public park to deter crime.
Issue: Whether continuous video surveillance violated citizens’ right to privacy.
Ruling: The Court held that video surveillance was lawful only if clearly justified and limited in scope, duration, and area.
Significance: Established that public surveillance must be balanced against privacy rights; indiscriminate surveillance is not permissible.
Case 2: Supreme Administrative Court, 2010 – Covert Electronic Surveillance by Police
Background: Police used covert electronic surveillance during a criminal investigation.
Issue: Whether the surveillance complied with legal standards and respect for privacy.
Ruling: The Court ruled that surveillance required prior authorization by a court and must be strictly necessary.
Significance: Reinforced judicial oversight and strict conditions for covert surveillance.
Case 3: Administrative Court of Helsinki, 2014 – Data Collection by Social Welfare Authorities
Background: Social services collected extensive personal data on a family without clear consent.
Issue: Whether the collection breached privacy and data protection rules.
Ruling: The Court found the data collection excessive and ordered stricter compliance with data minimization principles.
Significance: Highlighted administrative limits on personal data collection respecting privacy rights.
Case 4: Supreme Administrative Court, 2017 – GPS Tracking of Public Officials
Background: An administrative authority installed GPS trackers on official vehicles without informing employees.
Issue: Whether this constituted unlawful surveillance violating privacy.
Ruling: The Court ruled the tracking unlawful due to lack of transparency and insufficient justification.
Significance: Emphasized employee privacy and administrative obligation to inform affected individuals.
Case 5: Supreme Administrative Court, 2019 – Use of Biometric Data in Public Administration
Background: A government agency introduced fingerprint identification for access control.
Issue: Whether use of biometric data complied with privacy and data protection laws.
Ruling: The Court approved the measure only with strict safeguards, including data security and limited use.
Significance: Set standards for biometric data use respecting privacy and proportionality.
Case 6: Administrative Court of Turku, 2022 – Surveillance of Protestors by Police
Background: Police surveillance of public demonstrations using facial recognition technology.
Issue: Whether such surveillance infringed demonstrators’ right to privacy and freedom of assembly.
Ruling: The Court limited police surveillance powers, requiring clear legal basis and proportionality.
Significance: Balanced state security interests with privacy and fundamental freedoms in administrative surveillance.
4. Summary of Legal Principles and Practice
Administrative surveillance in Finland is strictly regulated to protect privacy.
Courts enforce legal basis, proportionality, necessity, and transparency.
Judicial oversight is essential, especially in covert or intrusive surveillance.
The right to privacy applies to all forms of administrative data collection and monitoring, including emerging technologies.
Violations of privacy in administrative surveillance often lead to annulment of decisions or orders and require reforms in administrative procedures.
RELATED Blog
0 comments