Legal News

European Court of Human Rights upholds prohibition on processing of personal data by refining the scope of journalistic purpose (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v Finland)

European Court of Human Rights upholds prohibition on processing of personal data by refining the scope of journalistic purpose (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v Finland)
Published on: 04 July 2017
Published by: LexisPSL
  • European Court of Human Rights upholds prohibition on processing of personal data by refining the scope of journalistic purpose (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v Finland)
  • Original news:
  • What were the facts of, and background to, this case?
  • What did the Grand Chamber decide?
  • What are the main implications of this case for UK lawyers?
  • What are the implications of this case for UK journalism and for UK privacy and data protection practitioners?

Article summary

Information law analysis: Shobana Iyer, barrister at Swan Chambers, considers the case Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v Finland before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (respectively the ECtHR and the Grand Chamber). This important case examines the conflict between the need to protect private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, in the domain of publicly available personal data and data journalism. According to the Grand Chamber, when balancing the protection of private life against freedom of expression, the decisive criterion had to be the contribution made by publishing the data to a debate of public interest. If a publication is only meant to satisfy the curiosity of a certain audience, freedom of expression must be interpreted more narrowly. The Grand Chamber also considered there was a violation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR in this case, as the length of the proceedings at domestic level (six years and six months) was excessive and failed to meet the right to a hearing within a ‘reasonable time’, even taking into account the complexity of the case. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents