In a democratic society, privacy protection and the public’s right to information can sometimes come into conflict. An example of this is the treatment of journalist Seija Selistö (1941–2022), which became a precedent for freedom of expression and the independence of journalism in society.
In 1996, Selistö, who worked as a journalist for the newspaper Pohjalainen, wrote three articles on patient safety using public documents as sources.
For these articles, Selistö was sentenced to fines for defamation and abuse of freedom of the press. She appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which ruled that Finland had restricted Selistö’s freedom of expression.
The sources were public documents
The articles were related to a case in which a surgeon had performed surgery in the morning on the first weekday after Independence Day in 1992. In what was supposed to be a routine operation, the patient died.
The patient’s widow filed a crime report. For this reason, the National Bureau of Investigation interviewed roughly forty people, whose interrogation records Selistö used as her source. However, she did not mention in her articles that the crime report submitted by the widow had not led to charges being brought.
Based on the statements on record, Selistö pointed out in her article that the operating surgeon had had a long history of alcohol problems. She did not mention the surgeon by name. The surgeon filed a crime report for the articles because he felt that they damaged his reputation.
The District Court imposed fines on Selistö and Pohjalainen’s then editor-in-chief Jaakko Elenius. The case proceedings continued in the court of appeal, where the punishments were considered too slight and the fines were increased. The Supreme Court did not grant permission to appeal in the case, so the court of appeal’s judgement remained in force.
With assistance from the Union of Journalists in Finland, Selistö appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which ruled in favour of Selistö.
Precedent of the limits of the freedom of expression
The ECtHR’s decision was not about evaluating the surgeon’s actions. It was a question of freedom of the press and freedom of expression as a fundamental right and weighing it against another fundamental right, the protection of reputation and privacy.
Finland had acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1990, and in 1995, a fundamental rights reform was implemented to harmonise the national fundamental rights regulations with the international human rights conventions binding on Finland. The ECtHR’s decision thus became a precedent.
According to the ECtHR, the press plays an essential role in a democratic society. While the press may not exceed certain limits, for example with regard to the confidentiality of confidential information, it must, in accordance with its duties and responsibilities, share information and ideas on all matters of general interest. In addition, the public has the right to receive information and ideas.
The ECtHR found that, when sentencing journalist Selistö on the basis of her articles, Finland had violated the tenth article of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which provides for freedom of expression and the conditions for restricting it. The State of Finland was ordered to pay damages. This was the first time in the history of Finland.
The case weighed on journalist Selistö for the rest of her life. She appealed to the Supreme Court to annul the court of appeal’s decision. However, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.
Finland has received several penalties
The Selistö case was the first of its kind, but since then, Finland has received several penalties related to freedom of expression, most of which have been related to news reports by the media.
Between 1994 and 2009, for example, Finland received a total of 75 penalties from the ECtHR, which was more than the total number of penalties received by all other Nordic countries combined.
In its decisions, the ECtHR has considered the protection of freedom of expression more seriously than Finnish courts, whereas in the long tradition of Finnish courts, the protection of reputation and private life has been emphasised.
In this case, the work of an individual journalist gave the impetus for a change in the entire legal culture.
Sources:
KKO 2008:24
ECtHR Selistö v. Finland, 16 November 2004
Päivikki Karhula: ”Suomi sai Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimelta 74 langettavaa päätöstä”, Tiellä sananvapauteen 16.11. 2016
Kaarlo Tuori: “Sananvapaus vs. Suomi” teoksessa Matti Wuori – Tapauskertomuksia Suomesta. Teos 2023.
Riitta Ollila: “Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen langettavien päätösten merkitys suomalaiselle sananvapaudelle”, Defensor Legis N:o 2/2005.
Sirpa Sainio: “Peräänantamaton taistelija, toimittaja ja taiteilija” (Seija Selistön muistokirjoitus), Journalisti 16.9.2022.