Not a violation of freedom of religion to obtain consent for the collection of personal data of citizens by Jehovah’s Witnesses!
JUDGMENT
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES v. FINLAND 09.05.2023 (app. no. 31172/19)
SUMMARY
Preaching, freedom of religion and data protection.
The applicant community of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Finland, through its believers, preached to local residents door-to-door. The domestic courts fined the community for unlawfully collecting and processing personal data of citizens without their consent. The applicant appealed to the Court for violation of freedom of religion.
The Court held that there were restrictions, such as consent, which had the legitimate aim of protecting the “rights and freedoms of others” within the meaning of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention. The restriction of consent to the processing of personal data was not related to religious freedom and was necessary to avoid disclosure of personal and sensitive data.
The Court did not find a violation of freedom of religion (Article 9).
PROVISION
Article 9
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant community, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Jehovan todistajat), is a Finnish religious community based in Vantaa (Finland).
In 2000, the Privacy Ombudsman issued a directive that during door-to-door visits by Jehovah’s Witnesses, personal data could only be collected with the consent of the individuals following a question.
A complaint was submitted to the Ombudsman in 2011, alleging that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ notes corresponded to a “personal data file”. Jehovah’s Witnesses argued that there was no obligation on individual members to archive any information, and in any case the information was voluntarily provided by people on their doorsteps.
The case was referred to the Data Protection Authority, which decided to prohibit Jehovah’s Witnesses from collecting data without complying with the general principles and conditions for processing personal and sensitive data set out in the legislation, i.e. without the unambiguous consent of the individual whose data is being collected. It gave the applicant community six months to ensure that the data collected met the requirements for such an activity. The applicant congregation and two individual Jehovah’s Witnesses took the matter to court, seeking to have the decision of the Data Protection Authority amended so that information collected during door-to-door preaching would be considered for “personal or comparative purposes only”.
The Helsinki Administrative Court partially upheld the applicant community’s appeal, annulling the decision. It held, among other decisions, that the applicant community was not the “controller” of the data in question, and that there was the explicit consent of the parties concerned required for the collection and processing of such data. The Ombudsman appealed in 2015.
In 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court stayed the proceedings and sought a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). In 2018 the CJEU held, inter alia, that “in the course of their preaching, those members [Jehovah’s Witnesses] at least some of the data collected become accessible to a potentially unlimited number of individuals”. Therefore, the collection of data during preaching does not fall within the specific categories of data for private or household use.
In 2018 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the annulment of the Helsinki Administrative Court. It decided that an oral hearing was unnecessary as it had already received submissions from all parties. It held, with reference to the CJEU’s findings, that the collection of data from Jehovah’s Witnesses could not be considered as private data for personal use. Even though door-to-door preaching was also part of the personal religious activity of the Jehovah’s Witness community, it was in fact organised, coordinated and encouraged by the applicant community. Therefore, the Jehovah’s Witness community was the ‘controller’ of the data and therefore responsible.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT….
Article 9
The Court reiterated the importance of freedom of religion in democratic societies.
It accepted that the requirement to obtain the consent of individuals whose data had been processed by Jehovah’s Witnesses constituted an interference with Article 9; the interference was clearly “foreseen by law” as defined in the Personal Data Act and confirmed by the CJEU and the Supreme Court of Finland. The Court was satisfied that there were restrictions which had a legitimate aim of protecting the “rights and freedoms of others” within the meaning of Article 9 § 2 ECHR. The key question that remained was whether this interference was “necessary in a democratic society”. The Supreme Court had reasoned that the restrictions were not on religious freedom, but to protect the rights of others with regard to the processing of their personal data, finding that personal or domestic use did not apply. It had correctly balanced the rights of the applicant community against the rights of the individuals whose data had been processed.
The Court noted that the relevant law had been applied to all religious communities and that no fine had been imposed on the Jehovah’s Witnesses community in this case. It stated that the requirement to obtain consent was necessary to avoid disclosure of personal and sensitive data and that this requirement did not impede the religious freedom of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In light of this, the Court held that there was no violation of freedom of religion.
