JW Bulletin

Jehovah's Witnesses in the Media

Translation: Helsingin Sanomat – 17th December 2018

Helsingin Sanomat – 17th December 2018

Supreme Administrative Court: Lists of Judges Collected by Jehovah’s Witness Preachers were unlawful

The consent of the persons concerned is necessary for drawing up lists of names and notes.

According to the Supreme Administrative Court (KHO), the list of names collected by Jehovah’s Witnesses is unlawful. The KHO issued a resolution on Monday.

Jehovah’s Witnesses must therefore abide by a previous decision of the Data Protection Board, which has denied Jehovah’s Witnesses collecting lists of names or using notes on the doorsteps of their doorstep-door preaching.

The consent of the persons concerned is necessary for drawing up lists of names and notes.

The Data Protection Board has obliged the community within six months to ensure that personal data is not collected for the purpose of the community.

According to the Supreme Administrative Court, Jehovah’s Witnesses have at least theoretical possibility to arrange their preaching activities in such a way that prior consent is always required to collect the information.

AINAKIN part of the participants in the preaching work have made notes. The community’s own publication has also been instructed to make notes for re-enactments.

According to the KHO, their content and methods of recording have varied.

According to the KHO, notes may be made, for example, of a house or dwelling number, the name and gender of the resident, and the date and topic of the next meeting. The note could also be marked if a particular apartment or a particular person was no longer wanted to visit.

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own publications have instructed to record information about the person’s concerns and belonging to the religion.

The handling of ASIA in administrative courts has lasted several years. The treatment was affected by the fact that in December 2016 the KHO also requested a preliminary ruling from the EU Court before making its own decision.

The Data Protection Supervisor took the case initially for the Data Protection Board to be resolved in 2013. According to the EDPS, the community refused to comply with previous authorized examiners’ requests for consent.

The Jehovah’s Witness Society complained of a ruling by the Data Protection Board to the Administrative Court, from which the proceeding proceeded to the Supreme Administrative Court.

* all translations provided on JWBulletin.com are for information purposes only and are sourced from automated translation services. These are not checked for accuracy. To ensure accuracy, please refer to the original language text.

%d bloggers like this: