5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Helsinki. 6.  The applicant is a journalist and the editor-in-chief of a monthly magazine called Alibi, which specialises in crime reporting and has a circulation of approximately 32,000. The publisher of Alibi is Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy. 7.  On 29 July 2003 J., a police officer, stopped a person unknown to him on the road and used his police identity card to take possession of the person’s car for emergency reasons, as he put it. He then drove off at high speed. After the car appeared to break down, J. tried to acquire another vehicle in the same manner. The persons in the second car turned out to be two police officers in civilian clothing, who were monitoring the traffic. After having threatened the police officers with violence, J. continued towards his destination. His speed alternated between 160 and 185 km/h in a zone where the limit was set at 80 and 100 km/h. At his destination, J. was apprehended by the police and charged with stealing the vehicle and various other offences. 8.  Soon after his arrest, J. gave an exclusive interview, for a fee, to a weekly magazine called 7-Päivää. His real name was not revealed in the interview but his picture (face in profile) was used and the article mentioned that he was, at the time, undergoing involuntary treatment in a mental hospital. J. had also offered an interview to Alibi (and the applicant) against payment but the offer was refused by the applicant. 9.  On 3 February 2004, in the hearing before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), J. pleaded guilty to most of the charges. The court ordered J., in accordance with his own request, to undergo psychiatric examination to establish whether he was, at the time, criminally responsible for his actions. 10.  In the March 2004 edition of Alibi an article was published about J. and his case. The article was written by the applicant. The information in the article was based on the public court documents acquired by the applicant from the District Court after the hearing on 3 February 2004. The article included J.’s name, year of birth, some background information about him and his current place of work, details of the incident of 29 July 2003 and information that J. had wished to undergo a psychiatric evaluation before the court’s decision was made and that he had been ordered to do so by the court. 11.  On 26 May 2004 the Mustasaari District Court found J. guilty of all charges but, because he had been found not to have been criminally responsible for his actions, the court waived the sentence. 12.  On 15 April 2004 J. lodged a complaint with the Finnish Council for Mass Media (Julkisen sanan neuvosto, Opinionsnämnden för massmedier) about the subject-matter of the case. On 18 August 2004 the Council found that the applicant had violated good journalistic practice by publishing J.’s name and information about his psychological examination. The Council gave the applicant a warning. 13.  On 19 September 2004 J. requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had committed an offence of “dissemination of information violating private life” (yksityiselämää loukkaavan tiedon levittäminen, spridande av information som kränker privatlivet) on account of his article. J. also requested the applicant to pay, in addition to his legal fees, 15,000 euros (EUR) in damages for mental suffering caused by the article in question. 14.  On 31 December 2004 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute as he did not find proof or probable cause to support the indictment. He found that a psychiatric assessment and the decision to order a person to undergo such an assessment were integral parts of crime reporting. No further comments about J.’s health had been made in the article. Moreover, when balancing the freedom of expression against the protection of privacy, he agreed that the latter required non-disclosure of J.’s name. However, the reasons for disclosing J.’s name, namely the fact that J. was a police officer, the gravity of the charges against him and the need to clear other local police officers, weighed heavier. No crime had thus taken place. 15.  On 23 March 2005 J. lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General (valtakunnansyyttäjä, riksåklagaren) who on 20 July 2006 ordered charges to be brought against the applicant. 16.  On 15 June 2007 the District Court convicted the applicant of dissemination of information violating private life and sentenced him to pay 30 day-fines, a total of EUR 1,170, adjusted to his taxable income. In addition, the applicant was ordered to pay J.’s legal fees in the amount of EUR 5,896.21 plus interest. J.’s claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed without examining the merits as he had not directed his compensation claim against the publisher of Alibi, Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy, who bore the primary responsibility according to the law. The court noted that J. was an experienced police officer whose duties involved the exercise of public power but that he was not of high rank. The crimes had not been committed in office but had taken place during J.’s free time. The judgments convicting J. as well as the information about his lack of criminal liability and wish to undergo psychiatric evaluation were public. However, all public information was not necessarily publishable. The crimes committed by J. had been ordinary and not very serious. On the other hand, the local interest in the case had been so exceptional that it had been reasonable to write about acts committed by J. and about his state of mind. The applicant had been aware of the fact that J. had been mentally ill at the time of the publication. The publication of J.’s name did not strengthen the applicant’s journalistic message nor was it well-founded in any other way. J.’s name had not been disclosed in any other publication. The fact that J. had given an interview to the press did not change the outcome of the applicant’s case as J. had not been able to evaluate the repercussions of his actions due to his mental illness. 17.  Following the applicant’s conviction, various media published a story about it, mentioning his name and profession. Some of them also included the applicant’s picture. He did not consent to the media reports. 18.  By letter dated 12 July 2007 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), claiming, inter alia, that the publication of public information could not fall within the scope of Chapter 24, section 8, of the Penal Code and that, in any event, the intention was lacking. 19.  On 10 July 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision. The legal fees to be paid by the applicant were lowered to EUR 4,000 plus interest. The request for non-pecuniary damages was rejected as premature because the compensation claim had not been directed against Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy. The court found, in addition to the District Court’s reasoning, that a crime was not the perpetrator’s private matter. However, J.’s trial had still been pending when the impugned article was published. Due to his mental illness, he had not been able to understand that his acts or trial would attract more publicity than usual. The applicant’s act was intentional as he must have known that it was probable that the publication of the information would be conducive to suffering or damage to J. 20.  By letter dated 8 September 2008 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before the Court of Appeal. 21.  On 4 December 2008 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. J. was granted leave to appeal with regard to the question of non‑pecuniary damages. 22.  On 6 May 2009 the Supreme Court referred the issue of non‑pecuniary damages back to the Helsinki District Court for examination as Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy had not been summoned as a defendant in the case or been reserved an opportunity to be heard in the matter. 23.  On 23 March 2010 the Helsinki District Court found the applicant liable for damages. It ordered the applicant to pay J., jointly with Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy, EUR 10,000 plus interest as well as EUR 3,200 for costs and expenses. Moreover, the applicant alone was ordered to pay J. costs and expenses in the amount of EUR 5,728.86. The court found that the publication of J.’s name had caused him and his family mental suffering, especially as his delusions had been mentioned in the article. The article had affected J.’s reputation permanently and it had made it difficult for J. to continue to live a normal life. J. had given an interview to another magazine in which his identity had not been disclosed. Therefore, the fact that he had given the interview did not make his suffering any less. At the time of the interview J. had been mentally ill and was not able to assess the consequences of the interview. J.’s name had been published by the applicant seven months after J. had committed the crimes and during the District Court proceedings. 24.  By letter dated 21 April 2010 the applicant and Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy appealed against the District Court decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal, requesting that the claim for damages be rejected or at least reduced. They contended that the non-pecuniary damage suffered by J. was not due to the applicant’s article but the result of the crimes he had committed. 25.  On 5 November 2010 the Helsinki Court of Appeal partly accepted the applicant’s appeal and ordered him to pay J., jointly with Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy, EUR 5,000 plus interest as well as EUR 2,140 for costs and expenses. Moreover, the applicant alone was ordered to pay J. costs and expenses in the amount of EUR 4,200. The court found that information about a person’s mental health was sensitive information the publication of which, together with J.’s name, was conducive to causing J. suffering. The applicant’s conviction and order to pay non-pecuniary damages to J. did not represent an unreasonable sanction, even bearing in mind that the case concerned an exception to the freedom of expression. The fact that J. had given an interview to a magazine prior to the publication of the impugned article had caused him suffering already. The applicant could be held responsible only for the additional suffering caused to J. thereafter by the impugned article. 26.  On an unspecified date all parties to the proceedings appealed to the Supreme Court. 27.  On 21 June 2011 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.