Act on Openness of Government Activities (621/1999)
Act on Openness of Government Activities (621/1999) – Overview
Purpose and Scope
The Act on Openness of Government Activities (hereafter, the Openness Act) is a fundamental Finnish law aimed at promoting transparency, accountability, and public trust in government. It ensures the public's right to access official documents and information held by public authorities, while balancing this with the need to protect sensitive information.
Key Principles
Presumption of Openness: Government activities and documents are presumed open and accessible to the public.
Right of Access: Everyone has the right to inspect official documents, unless specifically restricted by law.
Restrictions: Access can be denied for reasons such as national security, privacy protection, business secrets, or ongoing investigations.
Obligation to Provide Information: Authorities must respond to information requests promptly and justify any refusal.
Proactive Disclosure: Authorities are encouraged to publish information proactively to improve transparency.
Important Case Laws on the Openness Act
1. KHO 2003:45 (Supreme Administrative Court, 2003)
Facts: A journalist requested documents related to a municipal decision on zoning. The municipality refused, citing privacy concerns of third parties.
Issue: Whether privacy grounds justified refusal of access.
Decision: The court ruled that while privacy is important, the public interest in transparency regarding land use decisions outweighed privacy concerns. The documents had to be disclosed with appropriate redactions.
Significance: Clarifies that transparency often takes precedence, but sensitive information must be protected through redactions rather than full denial.
2. KHO 2007:120
Facts: A company requested access to tender documents from a public procurement process. The authority refused, citing business secrecy.
Issue: Whether refusal on business secrecy grounds was lawful.
Decision: The court held that business secrets must be protected but authorities must balance this with the public interest in openness. Some parts of the documents could be disclosed while protecting genuinely secret information.
Significance: Demonstrates balancing between openness and protection of business secrets in administrative transparency.
3. KHO 2011:95
Facts: Access to documents concerning a police investigation was denied to protect an ongoing investigation.
Issue: Whether refusal was justified under the Openness Act.
Decision: The court confirmed that access may be lawfully refused if disclosure would harm an ongoing investigation. Once the investigation ended, documents should be disclosed unless other grounds apply.
Significance: Affirms that temporary restrictions on openness are acceptable to protect public interests like effective law enforcement.
4. KHO 2014:76
Facts: A citizen requested documents about the allocation of social welfare benefits. The authority denied access citing privacy of other beneficiaries.
Issue: Whether denial was justified.
Decision: The court ruled that personal data protection justified withholding certain details, but statistical or anonymized information should be disclosed to ensure transparency.
Significance: Balances individual privacy rights with transparency obligations under the Openness Act.
5. KHO 2017:33
Facts: Environmental activists requested access to environmental impact assessments held by a local authority.
Issue: Whether withholding such documents was lawful.
Decision: The court held that environmental documents are generally subject to openness due to strong public interest in environmental protection.
Significance: Reinforces that environmental information enjoys a strong presumption of openness under Finnish law.
6. KHO 2020:18
Facts: A request was made for communications between government officials regarding a controversial infrastructure project.
Issue: Whether internal communications could be withheld.
Decision: The court decided that internal deliberations could be withheld temporarily to protect the decision-making process but must be disclosed eventually to ensure accountability.
Significance: Establishes the principle that transparency is balanced with the need for confidential internal deliberations, but secrecy is not indefinite.
Summary and Analysis
The Openness Act firmly establishes the public’s right to access official information, promoting government transparency.
Finnish courts consistently balance openness with protection of privacy, business secrets, ongoing investigations, and internal deliberations.
Denials must be justified and as narrow as possible; partial disclosure with redactions is preferred over full refusal.
The Act encourages proactive disclosure to reduce the need for formal access requests.
Transparency is a cornerstone of Finnish democracy, ensuring public trust and accountability in government.
RELATED Blog
0 comments