CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 March 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17206/25 Janne Tapani JUUSELA against Finland lodged on 30 May 2025 communicated on 10 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the publication of tax information on the applicant – including his name, year of birth, place of residence and the amount of taxable income – in so-called tax machines. In Finland, private media companies run internet services where data on over 100,000 individuals are published annually, including their name, year of birth, place of residence, the amount of taxable income and capital income and the amount of tax payable. The Tax Administration transmits the data en masse to the media every year. The data are published in so-called tax machines where the information is published as such, without any journalistic or editorial analysis. The tax information on the applicant was published in the tax machines of the newspapers Helsingin Sanomat and Ilta-Sanomat . The applicant is not a person known to the public, nor a person with economic influence and the amount of his income is not exceptionally high. He brought the issue to the attention of the Data Protection Ombudsman who on 11 May 2022 held that the tax machines fell within the exception in the Data Protection Act, allowing the processing of personal data; the Ombudsman did not take a stand on its publication. On 13 December 2023 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal, finding that the publication of tax information had been permitted for redactional journalistic purposes, where an annual income threshold (150,000 euros of taxable income per person for Helsingin Sanomat and 100,000 euros of taxable income per person for Ilta-Sanomat ) was attained, and that there was no discrimination since the income limit was the same for everybody. On 3 February 2025 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that private information has been published repeatedly in tax machines without his consent and despite his explicit request not to have his data submitted to the media. There has thus been an interference with his right to respect for his private live. The publication of the tax information on him was not necessary in a democratic society since he is not a politician, civil servant or economically influential person, and the publication did not serve any societal interests which would justify restricting his right to respect for his private life. No balancing between the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression had been carried out in the present case. The applicant further complains under Article 14 of the Convention that his position should be compared with that of the other Finnish citizens. The authorities and domestic courts have not given any objective criteria why his right to respect for his private life has been restricted on the basis of his level of income. There has thus been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 (see   L.B.   v.   Hungary [GC], no. 36345/16, §§   102-28, 9   March 2023 ; and, mutatis mutandis , Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia   Oy v.   Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§   120-66, 27 June 2017)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification (see for the general principles Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no.   34369/97, §   44, ECHR 2000-IV; and Tulokas and Taipale v. Finland (dec.), nos.   5854/18 and 5855/18, §§   45-50, 4   February 2025)?