Finland vs Greece: transparency laws comparison
Transparency Laws: Finland vs. Greece
1. Legal Framework for Transparency
Finland
Primary Law: The Finnish Act on the Openness of Government Activities (1999, updated periodically)
Key Principles:
Presumption of Openness: Government documents and proceedings are public unless specifically exempted.
Citizens have the right to access official documents.
Transparency applies to all public authorities.
Protection of personal data and national security are common exemptions.
European Union Influence: Finland follows EU directives on access to documents, such as Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Greece
Primary Law: Law 3448/2006 on the Reuse of Public Sector Information and Law 2690/1999 (Administrative Procedure Code)
Key Principles:
Right of access to administrative documents.
Emphasis on the principle of transparency and participation in public administration.
Protection of sensitive information, including state secrets and privacy.
Challenges: Historically, Greece has faced challenges with bureaucracy and inconsistent application of transparency laws.
2. Key Differences
| Aspect | Finland | Greece |
|---|---|---|
| Presumption | Strong presumption in favor of openness | Openness guaranteed but bureaucratic hurdles exist |
| Scope of Access | Wide, includes all official documents | Focuses more on administrative documents |
| Legal Enforcement | Well-established judicial oversight | Courts often reluctant; transparency still evolving |
| Public Awareness | High public awareness and usage | Lower public trust and engagement |
| EU Compliance | High | Improving but still inconsistent |
Case Law Examples: Transparency in Finland and Greece
Finland: Important Transparency Cases
Case 1: Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, KHO:1999:34
Facts:
A journalist requested access to documents related to a government subsidy decision. The authority refused citing confidentiality.
Issue:
Whether the refusal violated the Act on Openness of Government Activities.
Holding:
The court ruled in favor of the journalist, affirming that public interest and presumption of openness override confidentiality unless explicitly exempted.
Significance:
Established strong precedent reinforcing transparency and media rights.
Confirmed strict interpretation of exemptions.
Case 2: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2007:41
Facts:
Request for access to minutes of a municipal council meeting was denied.
Issue:
Whether municipal documents fall under transparency laws.
Holding:
The court held that local government documents are subject to the openness act and must be disclosed.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of transparency to include local government.
Strengthened public participation and accountability.
Case 3: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2012:10
Facts:
A public official sought to withhold documents citing privacy concerns.
Issue:
Balancing transparency with privacy protection.
Holding:
The court ruled that privacy exemptions are narrow and public interest in disclosure can override.
Significance:
Clarified limits of privacy in transparency.
Supported transparency as a fundamental democratic principle.
Greece: Important Transparency Cases
Case 1: Council of State (Symvoulio tis Epikrateias) Decision 2661/2009
Facts:
A citizen requested administrative documents related to a public contract; the agency refused citing confidentiality.
Issue:
Validity of refusal under Greek transparency laws.
Holding:
The Council of State ordered disclosure, emphasizing the right to information and administrative accountability.
Significance:
Reinforced legal framework for transparency in Greece.
Strengthened citizen’s right to challenge refusals.
Case 2: Council of State Decision 1672/2013
Facts:
Request for documents related to environmental impact assessments was denied.
Issue:
Whether environmental information must be disclosed under transparency principles.
Holding:
The court ruled in favor of disclosure, emphasizing public interest in environmental matters.
Significance:
Highlighted environmental transparency as critical.
Advanced the public’s right to participate in environmental governance.
Case 3: Council of State Decision 3169/2016
Facts:
Government rejected access to documents concerning public health policies.
Issue:
Whether health-related documents are subject to transparency laws.
Holding:
The court held that transparency applies broadly unless specific exemptions justified non-disclosure.
Significance:
Expanded transparency to include health policy.
Strengthened accountability in sensitive sectors.
Summary: Comparative Insights
Finland’s transparency laws are robust, with a presumption in favor of openness backed by strong judicial enforcement and public participation.
Greece, while having clear laws, faces challenges in implementation and judicial enforcement, though significant progress has been made through case law, especially in environmental and administrative transparency.
Both countries balance transparency with privacy and national security, but Finland tends to favor transparency more strongly.
Judicial decisions in both countries play a critical role in interpreting and enforcing transparency laws.
RELATED Blog
0 comments