Whistleblower protection in Finland
Finland's Whistleblower Protection Act (1171/2022), effective from January 1, 2023, aligns with the EU Directive 2019/1937, aiming to protect individuals who report breaches of EU or national law. While specific case law under this Act is limited, Finnish courts have addressed related issues concerning freedom of expression, defamation, and employment law, which are pertinent to whistleblower protection. Below are several notable cases and legal principles relevant to whistleblower protection in Finland:
1. Johanna Vehkoo v. Junes Lokka (Supreme Court, 2022)
Facts: Journalist Johanna Vehkoo was sued for defamation after referring to a politician, Junes Lokka, as a "racist" and a "Nazi clown" on social media.
Decision: The Supreme Court acquitted Vehkoo, emphasizing the importance of protecting freedom of expression, especially when it concerns public figures and matters of public interest.
Relevance: This case underscores the Finnish legal system's commitment to safeguarding free speech, particularly in the context of public discourse. Whistleblowers often disclose information about public figures or institutions, and this case suggests that Finnish courts may afford similar protections to individuals who report misconduct in the public interest.
2. Niskasaari v. Finland (European Court of Human Rights, 2018)
Facts: Journalist Niskasaari was penalized for publishing information about a public official's misconduct.
Decision: The European Court of Human Rights found that the Finnish courts had not adequately balanced the individual's right to freedom of expression with the protection of the public official's reputation.
Relevance: This case highlights the necessity for a careful balance between protecting individuals' reputations and upholding the right to freedom of expression. In the context of whistleblowing, it suggests that Finnish courts may consider the public interest and the truthfulness of the reported information when evaluating potential defamation claims against whistleblowers.
3. KKO:2020:58 (Supreme Court, 2020)
Facts: An employee claimed that their employer had violated the Act on Cooperation within Undertakings by failing to inform and consult them adequately during a restructuring process.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employee, emphasizing the employer's obligation to provide sufficient information and engage in meaningful consultation with employees during organizational changes.
Relevance: This case illustrates the Finnish legal system's commitment to protecting employees' rights to information and consultation. In the context of whistleblowing, it suggests that Finnish courts may uphold protections against retaliation, including adverse actions taken during organizational changes.
4. Freedom of Expression in Employment Context
Legal Principle: Finnish courts have consistently upheld the right to freedom of expression, even in the employment context, provided that the expression does not harm the employer's legitimate interests.
Relevance: This principle is particularly pertinent to whistleblowing cases, where employees disclose information about their employer's misconduct. Finnish courts may protect employees from retaliation if their disclosures are made in good faith and concern matters of public interest.
5. Defamation and Retaliation Claims
Legal Principle: In cases where employees face defamation or retaliation claims after reporting misconduct, Finnish courts assess whether the disclosures were made in good faith and whether they concern matters of public interest.
Relevance: This approach aligns with the objectives of the Whistleblower Protection Act, which aims to protect individuals who report breaches of law in good faith. Finnish courts may dismiss defamation or retaliation claims if the whistleblower's actions are deemed to be in the public interest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments