EIT:lta tuomioita Suomelle sananvapauden loukkaamisesta viidessä tapauksessa

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on tänään antanut viisi tuomiota, jotka kaikki koskivat enemmän tai vähemmän samasta tapahtumainkulusta uutisointia (ks. KKO 2002:55), ja joissa kaikissa Suomen katsottiin rikkoneen valittajien sananvapautta valittajien tultua tuomituiksi yksityiselämän loukkaamisesta uutisoidessaan entisen valtakunnansovittelijan naisystävän nimellä pahoinpitelyä koskevasta asiasta.

Having examined in earlier case law the domestic Criminal Code provision in question, the Court had found its contents quite clear: the spreading of information, an insinuation or an image depicting the private life of another person, which was conducive to causing suffering, qualified as invasion of privacy. In addition, even the exception stipulated in that provision - concerning persons in a public office or function, in professional life, in a political activity or in another comparable activity - was equally clearly worded.

Even though there had been no precise definition of private life in the law, if the applicants had had any doubts about the remit of that term, they should have either sought advice about its content or refrained from disclosing B.’s identity. In addition, the applicants were professional journalists and therefore could not claim not to have known the boundaries of the said provision since the Finnish Guidelines for Journalists and the practice of the Council for Mass Media, albeit not binding, provided even stricter rules than the Criminal Code.

However, there had been no evidence, or indeed any allegation, of factual misrepresentation or bad faith on the part of the applicants. Nor had there been any suggestion that they had obtained information about B. by illicit means. While it had been clear that B. had not been a public figure, she had been involved in an incident which had caused public disturbance outside of the family home of A., a well-known public figure with whom she had been in a close relationship. Therefore, B. could have reasonably been taken to have entered the public domain.

In addition, the disclosure of B.’s identity had been of clear public interest in view of A.’s conduct and his ability to continue in his post as a high-level public servant. The incident of 4 December 1996 had been widely publicised in the media, including in a programme broadcast nationwide on prime-time television as early as January 1997. Thus, the articles in question had not disclosed B.’s identity in this context for the first time.

Finally, in view of the heavy financial sanctions imposed on the applicants, the Court noted that B. had already been paid a significant sum for damages by the television company for having exposed, in January 1997, her private life to the general public. Repeating a violation did not necessarily cause the same amount of damage and suffering as the initial violation. And, last but not least, the Court noted that similar damages had been ordered to be paid to her also in respect of other articles published in other magazines by the other applicants listed above, which all stemmed from the same facts.

Accordingly, in view of the severe consequences for the applicants against the circumstances of the cases, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 in all five cases: by six to one votes in the case of Jokitaipale and Others, and unanimously in the other four cases.

The Court held that there had been no violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 7.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Finland was to pay the applicants sums ranging between 12,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 39,000 for pecuniary damage, between EUR 2,000 and EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and between EUR 3,000 and 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

Judge Garlicki expressed a dissenting opinion in the Jokitaipale and Others case, the text of which is attached to the judgment.

Tuomiot kokonaisuudessaan: Flinkkilä and others v. Finland
Tuomela and others v. Finland
Soila v. Finland
Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v. Finland
Jokitaipale and others v. Finland

Palaa otsikoihin