Fundamentos destacados: 189. Si bien los datos fiscales en cuestión eran accesibles públicamente en Finlandia, solo pudieron ser consultados en las oficinas fiscales locales y la consulta estaba sujeta a condiciones claras. Se prohibió la copia de esa información sobre palitos de memoria. Los periodistas podrían recibir datos fiscales en formato digital, pero también existían condiciones de recuperación y solo se podía recuperar una cierta cantidad de datos. Los periodistas tuvieron que especificar que la información se solicitó para fines periodísticos y que no se publicaría en forma de una lista (ver párrafos 49-51 anteriores). Por lo tanto, mientras que la información relacionada con las personas era de acceso público, las reglas y salvaguardas específicas gobernaban su accesibilidad.
190. El hecho de que los datos en cuestión fueran accesibles para el público en virtud de la ley nacional no significaba necesariamente que pudieran publicarse en un grado ilimitado (ver párrafos 48 y 54 anteriores). Publicar los datos en un periódico, y difundir aún más esos datos a través de un servicio SMS, lo hizo accesible de una manera y, en cierta medida, el legislador no pretendía.
[Traducido por LP]
189. Whilst the taxation data in question were publicly accessible in Finland, they could only be consulted at the local tax offices and consultation was subject to clear conditions. The copying of that information on memory sticks was prohibited. Journalists could receive taxation data in digital format, but retrieval conditions also existed and only a certain amount of data could be retrieved. Journalists had to specify that the information was requested for journalistic purposes and that it would not be published in the form of a list (see paragraphs 49-51 above). Therefore, while the information relating to individuals was publicly accessible, specific rules and safeguards governed its accessibility.
190. The fact that the data in question were accessible to the public under the domestic law did not necessarily mean that they could be published to an unlimited extent (see paragraphs 48 and 54 above). Publishing the data in a newspaper, and further disseminating that data via an SMS service, rendered it accessible in a manner and to an extent not intended by the legislator.
[Idioma original]
GRAND CHAMBER
CASE OF SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPÖRSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND
(Application no. 931/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 June 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:
András Sajó, President,
Işıl Karakaş,
Angelika Nußberger,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Luis López Guerra,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Kristina Pardalos,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller,
Aleš Pejchal,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Síofra O’Leary,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Jurisconsult,
Having deliberated in private on 14 September 2016 and on 5 April 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last‑mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 931/13) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Finnish limited liability companies, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy (“the applicant companies”) which had their seat in Kokemäki, Finland, on 18 December 2012.
2. The applicant companies were represented by Mr Pekka Vainio, a lawyer practising in Turku. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, first Mr Arto Kosonen and then Ms Krista Oinonen, both from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant companies alleged, in particular, that their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention had been violated and that the length of the domestic proceedings had been excessive, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
4. The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 21 July 2015 a Chamber of that Section, composed of Guido Raimondi, Päivi Hirvelä, George Nicolaou, Nona Tsotsoria, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Faris Vehabović, and Yonko Grozev, judges, and also of Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, delivered its judgment. It decided by a majority to declare the complaints concerning violation of the right to freedom of expression and the unreasonable length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible, and held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 10 and, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The concurring opinion of Judge Nicolaou and the dissenting opinion of Judge Tsotsoria were annexed to the judgment. On 21 October 2015 the applicant companies requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention. On 14 December 2015 the panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request.
5. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. At the final deliberations, Helen Keller, substitute judge, replaced Alena Poláčková, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rule 24 § 3).
6. The applicants and the Government each filed written observations (Rule 59 § 1) on the merits. In addition, third-party observations were received from the European Information Society Institute, the Nordplus Law and Media Network, Article 19, the Access to Information Programme and Társaság a Szabadságjogokért, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3).
7. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 14 September 2016 (Rule 59 § 3).
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Ms K. Oinonen, Director, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Agent,
Ms A. Talus, Senior Adviser, Ministry of Justice
Ms H. hynynen, Senior Adviser, Finnish Tax Administration,
Ms S. Sistonen, Legal Officer, Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Mr A. Kosonen, Director (ret.), Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Advisers;
(b) for the applicant companies
Mr P. Vainio, Lawyer, Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Ms K. Oinonen and Mr P. Vainio and the replies given by them to questions put by the judges.
[Continúa…]
