The ECtHR’s Grand Chamber Judgment in Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland
Following the 2015 ruling by the Fourth Section of the ECtHR, the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber affirmed by 15 to 2 votes that the Finish Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment did not contravene §10 ECHR on the freedom of expression by prohibiting the processing and further publication of publicly available tax data by two Finish companies. Finish law provides for the publication of the tax data on individuals. The Finish companies at stake re-published the tax data of citizens in newspaper format and via an SMS request service. Readers could view the tax data of individuals or could send an SMS with the name of an individual in order to receive the tax information of that individual per SMS.

1. Excessive length of the proceedings
The legal proceedings surrounding the case date back to a 2004 complaint lodged by the Finish Data Protection Ombudsman regarding the processing of the personal data by the two Finish companies. The proceedings went all the way to the Finish Supreme Administrative Court – leading to a preliminary ruling by the CJEU in 2008 (Case C-73/07 Satamedia Oy) – and a subsequent referral to the ECtHR. After the first ECtHR judgment in 2015, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR.

On the length of the proceedings, the ECtHR decided by a margin of 15 to 2 votes that the proceedings were excessive and therefore constituted a breach of §6(1) of the ECHR. The Court did not accept the complexity of the case and the fact that it was referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling as a reason to deny the breach.

2. Damages and expenses
Regarding potential costs and damages incurred by the companies at stake, the ECtHR rejected a plea for damages by the companies for € 900,000.00 and sided with the Finnish government by awarding costs and expenses to the applicant companies of € 9,500.00, instead of € 58,050.00 that were claimed by the applicant companies.

3. Dissenting opinions
In a partly dissenting opinion to the case, Judges Nussberger and Lopéz-Guerra disagree with the finding of a breach of §6(1) ECHR, highlighting the role of the applicants in potentially prolonging the proceeding, the legal complexity of the case and the different party configurations in the two sets of proceedings as underlying reasons.

Judges Sajó and Karakas issued a dissenting opinion on the finding that §10 ECHR was not infringed. They argue inter alia that the information published was deemed public and that the added requirement of ‘analytical input’ by journalists was too far reaching as journalistic work could also take the shape of further disseminating information. Hence, that argue that the re-publication should have fallen under the journalistic exception.

All in all, the case file gives a nice overview of the (complex) national and international legal proceedings and the various legislation and case law of the different levels involved. Link to the judgment.

 Published on Law Blogs Maastricht