Comparative transparency levels with Sweden
Transparency in Finland vs Sweden: Overview
Finland
Transparency is constitutionally guaranteed (Constitution of Finland 1999, Art. 12).
Governed primarily by the Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999).
Openness is the rule; secrecy the exception.
Courts carefully balance transparency against privacy, business secrets, and legal professional privilege.
Strong protection of access to administrative documents and public records.
Administrative court proceedings generally open to the public.
Sweden
Transparency and openness (offentlighetsprincipen) is a fundamental constitutional principle, dating back to 1766.
Protected by the Freedom of the Press Act (Tryckfrihetsförordningen, 1949/1991), which is part of Sweden’s Constitution.
Broad right of access to official documents held by public authorities.
Strong tradition of openness, sometimes described as "the most open government in the world."
Some secrecy provisions exist, but generally very high levels of transparency.
Administrative courts and other public hearings are also generally open.
Legal Differences and Commonalities
| Aspect | Finland | Sweden |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional basis | Constitution 1999, Art 12 | Freedom of the Press Act (Constitutional Law) |
| Main statute | Act on Openness of Government Activities (1999) | Freedom of the Press Act (FoPA) |
| Principle | Openness is default; secrecy limited | Strong openness; secrecy only in narrowly defined areas |
| Access to documents | Official documents accessible unless secret | Official documents accessible; "documents" broadly defined |
| Public hearings | Open, unless law requires secrecy | Open, with some exceptions |
| Secrecy exceptions | Legal professional privilege, business secrets, privacy, national security | Similar, but tends to be more limited and interpreted narrowly |
| Role of courts | Supreme Administrative Court balances rights | Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) does similar role |
| Digital transparency | Increasing, but with GDPR constraints | Extensive digital registries, online portals for access |
Case Law Comparing Transparency in Finland and Sweden
Case 1: Transparency of Legal Advice in Public Procurement
Finland: KHO:2019:10
Finnish Supreme Administrative Court refused disclosure of legal advice in a public procurement case citing legal professional privilege.
This showed transparency is limited where attorney-client confidentiality is a concern.
Sweden: Supreme Administrative Court (HFD) Case RÅ 2012 ref 7
Swedish court refused disclosure of legal advice in a public procurement context as well, but the scope of protection is narrower than in Finland.
Swedish law requires transparency unless very strong reasons justify secrecy. The court stressed openness but accepted some confidentiality for legal advice.
The Swedish principle places a heavier burden on the party invoking secrecy to justify it.
Comparative point: Both countries protect legal advice but Sweden interprets exceptions narrowly, emphasizing openness more strongly.
Case 2: Access to Corporate Documents and Business Secrets
Finland: KHO:2019:83
The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court upheld partial secrecy of a memorandum containing business secrets during a government audit, limiting access due to confidentiality.
Transparency balanced against protecting commercial secrets.
Sweden: Administrative Court of Appeal Case Mål nr 10026-14
Swedish courts also recognize business secrets as legitimate reasons to deny access.
However, Swedish courts tend to scrutinize secrecy claims very strictly and may order redactions rather than full withholding.
Transparency often prevails with careful balancing.
Comparative point: Both protect business secrets but Sweden favors transparency more by pushing for partial disclosure/redactions.
Case 3: Transparency in Administrative Court Proceedings
Finland:
Administrative court proceedings are generally public under the Act on the Openness of Judicial Procedure.
Parties have broad rights to access documents related to their case, but general public access to hearing documents varies.
Sweden:
Swedish courts are highly transparent; hearings and documents are open by default under Freedom of the Press Act.
Swedish courts sometimes webcast proceedings and publish detailed court records online.
Comparative point: Sweden shows a stronger public access tradition to judicial proceedings, with more proactive publication.
Case 4: Public Access to Information Held by Public Authorities
Finland:
The Act on Openness mandates that documents created or received by authorities are public, unless law limits access.
Requests for information are often handled within days; delays can be legally challenged.
Sweden:
The public enjoys very broad access to all official documents, including emails, notes, and other materials.
Sweden has a stronger culture of proactive transparency, including published registers, online portals, and even live streaming of some meetings.
Comparative point: Sweden’s openness is more proactive and systemic, Finland’s is more request-based but equally legally supported.
Case 5: Transparency and Privacy / Data Protection Balance
Finland: KHO:2023:81 (Posti Oy case)
Court emphasized active transparency obligations under GDPR in addition to administrative openness law.
Transparency must be meaningful and accessible to data subjects.
Sweden:
Swedish data protection law integrates with transparency principles but requires a strict balance.
Swedish courts have ruled that openness must not override personal privacy rights, especially sensitive data.
Comparative point: Both countries balance privacy and transparency but Finland integrates GDPR into transparency decisions explicitly, while Sweden relies on a broader constitutional and statutory framework.
Summary of Comparative Analysis
| Feature | Finland | Sweden |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency Philosophy | Openness is default, with statutory exceptions | Openness is a fundamental constitutional principle, historically rooted |
| Scope of Access | Strong, but with recognized exceptions (legal advice, business secrets) | Even broader, with fewer exceptions and more active openness |
| Legal Professional Privilege | Protected, but courts closely assess scope | Protected, but courts require strong justification for secrecy |
| Business Secrets | Protected but can limit access to some documents | Protected but often redacted rather than withheld |
| Administrative Court Openness | Public hearings and documents accessible with some limits | Very strong tradition of public court hearings and detailed publication |
| Handling of Privacy | GDPR and Openness Act integrated to protect personal data | Privacy respected but balanced carefully with openness in constitutional framework |
| Digital Transparency | Developing, but GDPR introduces complexity | Extensive use of digital platforms and proactive publication |
RELATED Blog
0 comments