Privacy Rights Versus Security In Finnish Criminal Law

04 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Privacy Rights Versus Security in Finnish Criminal Law

1. Introduction

In Finland, as in many jurisdictions, there is a delicate balance between individual privacy and state security. Privacy is a fundamental right under:

Finnish Constitution (Section 10 & 24): Protects personal integrity, privacy, and communications.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Article 8): Right to private and family life.

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Articles 7–8): Protects privacy and personal data.

At the same time, the state has a duty to ensure public security, prevent crimes, and maintain law and order. Criminal law often tests the limits of privacy to achieve security objectives.

2. Key Legal Areas in Finnish Criminal Law

Surveillance and Wiretapping

Governed by Criminal Investigation Act (2003/805) and Coercive Measures Act (2011/806).

Police can intercept communications with a court order for serious crimes.

Data Retention and Access to Information

Telecommunications companies must retain certain data for law enforcement under Data Retention Act (2007/518).

Access is limited to specific criminal investigations.

Use of Informants and Undercover Operations

Allowed in serious criminal cases (organized crime, terrorism) but subject to proportionality and oversight.

Cybercrime Investigations

Investigating hacking, online fraud, or terrorist communication may involve accessing private networks or data.

Proportionality Principle

Any intrusion into privacy must be necessary and proportionate to the security goal.

Courts balance public interest versus individual rights.

Finnish and EU Case Law on Privacy vs Security

1. KKO 2016:33 (Supreme Court of Finland, 2016)

Facts:
Police conducted surveillance on a suspect in a drug trafficking case using hidden cameras and microphones in private property.

Issue:
Did this violate privacy rights under Finnish law and ECHR?

Court Reasoning:

Interception was based on a court-approved order.

Surveillance was limited to serious criminal activity.

Proportionality and necessity were key considerations.

Holding:

Surveillance was lawful.

Emphasized that serious threats to public security can justify intrusion into privacy if court-approved.

Importance:

Clarified that privacy is not absolute when serious crimes are involved.

2. KKO 2010:14 (Supreme Court of Finland, 2010)

Facts:
Police obtained emails from a suspect without explicit consent, arguing it was necessary for fraud investigation.

Issue:
Was the interception of private electronic communication lawful?

Court Reasoning:

Only allowed if serious crimes are suspected.

Court must supervise to prevent arbitrary intrusion.

Holding:

Evidence admissible; procedure complied with the Coercive Measures Act.

Privacy can be overridden only for legitimate security needs.

Importance:

Established precedent for email and digital communication surveillance.

3. ECtHR Case: Niemietz v. Germany (1982)

Note: Not Finnish, but influential in Finnish courts.

Facts:
Police searched a lawyer’s office and seized documents.

Relevance:

Highlighted the principle that privacy extends to professional and home life.

Intrusions must be proportionate and legally justified.

Application in Finland:

Finnish courts often cite this for restricting state intrusion even in criminal investigations.

4. KKO 2008:25 (Supreme Court of Finland, 2008)

Facts:
Police tracked suspect’s movements using GPS on a company car without prior approval.

Issue:
Did it violate privacy rights?

Court Reasoning:

GPS surveillance without prior court approval is a violation of personal integrity.

Measures must comply with legal authorization and proportionality.

Holding:

Evidence obtained through unlawful surveillance was inadmissible.

Importance:

Reinforced the need for court oversight for any invasive surveillance.

5. KKO 2017:41 (Supreme Court of Finland, 2017)

Facts:
Authorities accessed cloud-stored data of a suspect involved in child exploitation cases.

Issue:
Balance between child protection (security) and suspect’s privacy.

Court Reasoning:

The risk to public safety and vulnerable victims justified accessing private data.

Court emphasized strict limitation: only relevant data could be accessed.

Holding:

Access was lawful; privacy was limited by security necessity.

Importance:

Set guidelines for targeted digital surveillance in criminal investigations.

6. Finnish Constitutional Law Case: Supreme Court Decision KKO 2004:108

Facts:
Authorities intercepted telephone calls of organized crime suspects.

Issue:
Conflict between Section 10 Constitution (privacy) and security measures.

Court Reasoning:

Privacy can be limited if measures are necessary, proportional, and legally authorized.

Evidence admissible only if procedures strictly followed.

Holding:

Affirmed the principle of proportionality in security intrusions.

Importance:

Foundational case balancing privacy and law enforcement powers.

7. KKO 2015:75

Facts:
Police wanted to use traffic cameras to track movements of a suspect in multiple thefts.

Issue:
Was mass surveillance justified for crime prevention?

Court Reasoning:

Surveillance targeting specific suspects is permissible; indiscriminate tracking is not.

Protects general population’s privacy.

Holding:

Targeted use allowed; broad data collection rejected.

Importance:

Highlighted individualized surveillance over blanket monitoring.

Key Principles from Finnish Case Law

Principle	Explanation
Proportionality	Intrusion into privacy must match the seriousness of the threat.
Court Authorization	Most invasive measures require prior judicial approval.
Targeted Surveillance	Mass surveillance without specific suspicion is not allowed.
Evidence Admissibility	Evidence from unlawful intrusion is inadmissible.
Digital Data	Modern communications (email, cloud) are protected; access must be justified.
Public Interest vs. Individual Rights	Security needs can override privacy but only when necessary and lawful.