Court case HelHO:2026:8 – Court Ruling (Finland, 2026)

A company (A) requested information from the District Court of Eastern Uusimaa (Itä-Uudenmaan käräjäoikeus; the controller) regarding pending and closed criminal matters involving 39 individuals who applied to be cast in an entertainment program (the data subjects). The company claimed the purpose of the request was to investigate the data subjects' backgrounds, which in turn constituted processing for exclusively journalistic purposes within the meaning of [https://www.finlex.fi/fi/lainsaadanto/2018/1050 Section 27 of the Finnish Data Protection Act]. This national provision contains exemptions from certain GDPR provisions allowed by Article 85(2) GDPR. The district court denied the request in August 2025 and held that the information was in fact requested to investigate the backgrounds of individuals who had applied for the entertainment program for the purpose of making casting decisions, rather than for journalistic purposes as A claimed. A subsequently appealed the case to the Helsinki Court of Appeal and demanded that the controller be ordered to disclose the information specified in the information request aiming at investigating the applicants' backgrounds. A argued that a journalistic purpose may also encompass editorial work related to the preparation of journalistic content. In this case, researching the backgrounds of applicants and selecting participants were part of the journalistic process. In addition, a media company (B) claimed before the court of appeals that it should be given the right to intervene in the proceedings as A served as a subcontractor for B in gathering information for the production of the entertainment program. First, the court held that B had no right to intervene in the matter concerning its subcontractor's request for information. As the case concerned a request for information made by B's subcontractor and not B's own right to information, the matter could not be considered to concern B's rights as required under national law to allow B to participate in the proceedings as an intervenor. Second, the court of appeals confirmed the findings of the district court regarding the main proceedings and dismissed A's appeal. The court concluded that A could not rely on the journalistic exception set forth in [https://www.finlex.fi/fi/lainsaadanto/2018/1050 Section 27 of the Finnish Data Protection Act] and referred to the CJEU's decisions in the cases C-740/22 Endemol Shine Finland and C-199/24 Legal Newsdesk Sweden AB to support its conclusion. In the former case, the CJEU held that the public access to official documents must be weighed against the respect for private life and the protection of personal data. In addition, these interests carry greater weight when the disclosure concerns sensitive information such as criminal convictions. In the latter decision, the CJEU held that the purpose of the processing falling under journalistic purposes within the meaning of Article 85(2) GDPR must be the disclosure of information, opinions or ideas to the public in compliance with ethical rules or codes of conduct. Furthermore, the information generally needs to undergo editing or adaptation and verification of factual allegations. The court held that the request for information had not been made for exclusively journalistic purposes within the meaning of [https://www.finlex.fi/fi/lainsaadanto/2018/1050 Section 27 of the Data Protection Act]: A had requested information regarding criminal matters primarily to evaluate which individuals would be selected for one specific production. The immediate purpose of the processing at issue was therefore to make a production-related decision regarding who would participate in the program rather than journalistic fact-finding. The fact that A was involved in the production of a television program was not decisive in the assessment of the matter.