Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999)
Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999)
Overview
The Act on the Openness of Government Activities (Finnish: Laki viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta, 621/1999) is a foundational law in Finland that regulates public access to government documents and information. The law promotes transparency by guaranteeing citizens the right to inspect official records and follow governmental decision-making processes.
Key Principles:
Openness: Government documents and information are public unless specifically classified.
Access: Citizens have the right to access official documents and records.
Restrictions: Information can only be withheld if it compromises privacy, security, ongoing investigations, or other legally protected interests.
Timeliness: Authorities must provide access without undue delay.
Purpose: To ensure public trust, prevent corruption, and improve democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinize government activity.
Key Provisions
Section 5: Public documents are accessible to everyone.
Section 24: Lists specific grounds for restricting access (e.g., national security, privacy, trade secrets).
Section 28: Governs how requests for documents should be handled.
Section 33: Provides procedures for appeal if access is denied.
Section 34: Specifies when information is to be treated as confidential.
Important Case Laws Interpreting the Act
1. Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2004:31
Facts:
A request was made to access documents related to a government contract. The authority refused, citing trade secrets and confidentiality.
Judgment:
The Supreme Administrative Court held that the protection of trade secrets must be balanced against the principle of openness. Documents should only be withheld if disclosure would cause significant harm to the legitimate interests of the party.
Significance:
The case reinforced that openness is the default rule, and exceptions must be narrowly construed. Transparency takes precedence unless clear, specific reasons justify confidentiality.
2. Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2012:64
Facts:
A journalist requested information about the government's decision-making process related to environmental regulation. The government claimed parts of the documents were exempt due to privacy concerns.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that public interest in transparency regarding environmental issues outweighed the privacy concerns in this case. Only specific personal data unrelated to the decision-making should be withheld.
Significance:
This case highlighted the balancing act between privacy and public interest, especially in environmental governance. Transparency is favored when it pertains to public welfare.
3. Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2015:42
Facts:
A citizen sought access to police investigation files concerning a public incident. The police refused, citing ongoing investigations.
Judgment:
The Court emphasized that investigative confidentiality is temporary and that access can be restricted only until the investigation is complete or harm is no longer probable.
Significance:
This case clarified that secrecy regarding investigations must be time-bound, reinforcing accountability and preventing indefinite withholding of information.
4. Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2018:55
Facts:
A municipal official denied access to records about procurement decisions, arguing the documents contained internal deliberations.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that internal communications are not automatically exempt from disclosure. Only materials that reveal legal advice or draft decisions protected by confidentiality can be withheld.
Significance:
The ruling limits the scope of confidentiality claims on internal documents, supporting greater openness in public procurement.
5. Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2020:27
Facts:
The Ministry refused to disclose correspondence with private companies concerning subsidies, claiming commercial sensitivity.
Judgment:
The Court decided that the public's right to know about the allocation of public funds outweighs commercial sensitivity, unless specific information could seriously damage a company's interests.
Significance:
The decision strengthens transparency regarding government expenditure and subsidies, holding authorities accountable for public money usage.
Summary:
The Act on the Openness of Government Activities is foundational to transparency in Finland.
It presumes all government information is public unless exceptions apply.
The Supreme Administrative Court's rulings have consistently favored openness, limiting exceptions to strict, justified cases.
Balancing public interest with privacy, security, and commercial confidentiality is key, but public interest often outweighs confidentiality.
These principles promote government accountability, democratic participation, and public trust.
RELATED Blog
0 comments