CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 10 December 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31172/19 JEHOVAN TODISTAJAT against Finland lodged on 10 June 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious activities in Finland and their compatibility with the data protection regulations. In 2013 the Data Protection Board prohibited the applicant community and its members from taking any notes for their personal use of religious conversations engaged in the context of their door-to-door preaching activities without the consent of the discussion partner or in violation of the data protection rules. This decision was partly upheld and partly quashed by the Administrative Court in 2014. Subsequently, after a preliminary ruling from the CJEU, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the Administrative Court and reinstated the decision of the Data Protection Board on 17 December 2018. The applicant community claims that no similar burden is imposed on the processing of personal data by individuals engaged in journalism or literary expression, by individuals using personal data purely for personal activities, or when the two State religions, namely the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church, are processing of personal data. The applicant community complains under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that no balancing act was made by the domestic courts. The interference did not pursue a legitimate aim, nor was it proportionate. Any noted down information was either in the public domain or voluntary given to the members of the community. It complains under Article 8 of the Convention that one’s name and address were data which was widely available in the public domain. Moreover, the notes made by the members of the community are protected against State interference under their right to privacy. The applicant community complains about discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. Lastly, it complains under Article 6 about the lack of an oral hearing before the domestic courts. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant community’s freedom of religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention? Having regard to the fact that some of the data in question was in public domain, has there been a violation of the applicant community’s right to freedom of expression, in particular its right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant community’s member’s right to respect for their 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?   3.     Has the applicant community suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12? In particular, has the applicant community 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?   4.     Has there been an oral hearing in the present case, as required by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?