K.U. v. Finland

K.U. (plaintiff) was 12 years old when an unknown party placed an internet ad in K.U.’s name on an online dating website. The advertisement contained the child’s personal and biographic information. K.U.’s father asked the police to identify who placed the advertisement to bring charges. The internet service provider refused to identify the owner of the Internet Protocol (IP) address, pursuant to Finland’s telecommunications law. The police requested that a court order the internet service provider to release the requested information. The district court refused, as no legal authority existed for a Finnish court to order a telecommunications provider to disclose telecommunication identification data in such circumstances. The district court explained that although the police had the right to obtain telecommunications identification data related to certain offenses, malicious misrepresentation was not an offense qualifying for the release of confidential user information. K.U. appealed, and the court of appeals upheld the district court’s decision. The supreme court refused leave to appeal. K.U. filed an application against Finland (defendant) in the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the Finnish government’s failure to create a regime in which the perpetrator of malicious misrepresentation against a child was identified violated Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the convention).