5.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1963 and 1969 respectively and live in Helsinki. The applicant company is based in Helsinki. The first applicant is the editor-in-chief and the second and third applicants are journalists in the nationwide 7 päivää magazine which is published by the applicant company. 6.  On 4 December 1996 A., the National Conciliator (valtakunnansovittelija, riksförlikningsmannen) at the time, and B., his female friend, entered late at night A.'s home where his wife was present. The situation escalated, the police were called and the incident, which subsequently involved also A.'s grown-up children, led to A.'s arrest. Criminal charges were brought against both A. and B. on 18 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) sentenced A. to a four-month conditional prison sentence for resisting arrest and for criminal damage (vahingonteko, skadegörelse), and B. to a fine for assault. On 17 January 1997 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) dismissed A. from his post as National Conciliator. On 25 June 1998 the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the judgment with respect to B. As regards A., the case was discontinued as he had died on 14 May 1998. On 15 December 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused B. leave to appeal. 7.  On 23 January, 6 February and 13 March 1997 the 7 päivää magazine published in total four articles about A. and B. Prior to these articles, the identity of B. had been revealed and her picture had been published in the media. 8.  The first article published on 23 January 1997 was entitled “B. broke up A.'s marriage” and it concerned A.'s marriage and his relationship with B. The article, which covered a whole double page spread, mainly concerned A.'s marriage and it included an interview with his wife. It also mentioned B. by name as well as her age, the name of her workplace, her family relationships and her relationship with A. Moreover, the changes in her career and assignments after the incident of 4 December 1996 which led to the arrest of A., the incident itself as well as the subsequent criminal proceedings and convictions of A. and B. were mentioned in the article. The caption of the article stated that “A.'s marital problems began eight years ago when B. entered his life”. The article also included pictures of A. and B. as well as of A.'s wife and children. Linked to this article there was, in the same issue, a news clip which was entitled “B. danced samba without A.”. It contained only a few lines but B.'s name, together with her picture, and the fact that she was convicted for having assaulted A.'s son were mentioned in the clip. Both items were written by the third applicant and approved by the first applicant. A. and B.'s pictures and statements concerning them were also published on the cover of the magazine. 9.  In the next two articles published on 6 February 1997 B.'s name, career, family relationships and her relationship with A. were mentioned together with pictures of her. The articles were written by a journalist, who has lodged a separate application with the Court (see Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06, 6 April 2010), and approved by the first applicant. 10.  The fourth article, published on 13 March 1997, was entitled “B. divorces her husband”. It mentioned, together with pictures of A. and B., her name, age, assignments, family relationships and her relationship with A. The article described also the incident of 4 December 1996, the subsequent criminal proceedings against A. and B., and their convictions. The caption of the article stated that “A.'s female friend B. lodged a divorce application with a court”. The article was written by the second applicant and approved by the first applicant. A. and B.'s pictures and statements concerning them were also published on the cover of the magazine. 11.  The first applicant also approved the publishing of all headings and photographs of B. 12.  On 28 March 1997 A. and B. requested that criminal investigations be conducted against journalists who had written about the incident of 4 December 1996 and the circumstances surrounding it. On an unspecified date they made such a request with respect to the applicants, claiming that the articles published in 7 päivää had invaded B.'s privacy. 13.  The first applicant was questioned as a suspect on 18 June 1997, the second applicant on 10 July 1997 and the third applicant on 15 August 1997. The applicants had already, before their questioning, drafted written submissions concerning the alleged offences dated as follows: the first applicant on 17 June 1997 and the second applicant on 24 June 1997. The written submission of the third applicant was not dated. The pre-trial investigation was concluded on 25 November 1998 and the matter was transferred for the consideration of the public prosecutor. 14.  On 17 August 1999 the public prosecutor decided not to bring charges against the applicants as, according to her, there was no indication of any crime. 15.  By letter dated 6 March 2000 B. complained to the Prosecutor-General (valtakunnansyyttäjä, högsta åklagaren) about the decisions not to prosecute and asked him to reconsider the cases. On 27 November 2001, after having considered the charges, the Deputy Prosecutor-General requested the public prosecutor to bring charges, inter alia, against the applicants. He reasoned his decision by stating, inter alia, that the facts revealed in the articles fell within the scope of private life and that no derogation could be made in this case as B. was not a public figure. 16.  On 28 November 2001 the public prosecutor, by order of the Deputy Prosecutor-General, brought charges against the first, second and third applicants in Vantaa District Court. At the same time charges were brought also against another journalist (see Soila v. Finland, cited above). B. concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor. She pursued a compensation claim against all the applicants, together with the other journalist, which was joined to the criminal charges. 17.  On 8 November 2002 the court, after having held an oral hearing, first decided to declare all parts of the case file secret for ten years, apart from the applicable legal provisions, the conclusions and the summary of the case. In addition, it ordered that the identity of B. was not to be revealed in the public parts of the case file. As to the merits of the case, the court sentenced the first applicant to pay forty day-fines for invasion of private life and the second and third applicants twenty day-fines, amounting to 4,080 euros (EUR), EUR 960 and EUR 840 respectively. Moreover, the first, the third and the fourth applicants were ordered to pay B. jointly and severally EUR 8,000 plus interest, the first and the fourth applicants, together with the other journalist were ordered to pay B. jointly and severally EUR 4,000 plus interest and the first, the second and the fourth applicants were ordered to pay B. jointly and severally EUR 4,000 plus interest, as non-pecuniary damage. The applicants, together with the other journalist, were jointly ordered to pay B.'s costs and expenses. The applicants paid in total EUR 39,494.95 in fines and compensation. 18.  The District Court found that the facts mentioned in the articles were of a kind to which the protection of private life typically applied. The Supreme Court had already found in 2002 that the national television broadcast on 23 January 1997, in which B.'s name had been mentioned twice in the context of an interview with A., had invaded her private life. B.'s position in society was not such that the exception in Chapter 27, section 3(a), paragraph 2, of the Penal Code was applicable. The fact that she was a friend of such a person and that she had been involved in the incident that subsequently led to the dismissal of A. from his post as National Conciliator did not justify revealing her identity. Nor was B.'s conviction of a kind that justified revealing her identity. The Penal Code provision in question did not require that intent to harm be shown; it was sufficient that the dissemination of information about the private life of a person was capable of causing him or her damage or suffering. The applicants, therefore, had had no right to reveal facts relating to B.'s private life or to publish photographs of her. 19.  By letter dated 16 December 2002 the applicants appealed to the Helsinki Appeal Court, claiming, inter alia, that they had not had a fair trial, that the provision of the Penal Code in question did not define with sufficient clarity which acts fell within its scope, and that the disclosure of a convicted person's name could not be considered as falling within the scope of private life. 20.  On 12 October 2004 the Appeal Court, without holding an oral hearing, upheld the District Court judgment. The court balanced the right to freedom of expression against the protection of private life in the light of the Court's case-law. It found that, according to the preparatory works and the national and the Court's case-law, the facts mentioned in the articles were of a kind to which the protection of private life typically applied. The Supreme Court had already found in 2002 that B. was not a public figure, and the fact that she was a friend of such a person and had been involved in the incident that subsequently led to A.'s dismissal from his post as National Conciliator did not justify revealing her identity. Nor was B.'s conviction of a kind that justified revealing her identity. The fact that B.'s identity as A.'s friend had previously been revealed in the media did not justify the subsequent invasion of her private life. 21.  By letter dated 13 December 2004 the applicants applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, reiterating their claims presented to the Appeal Court. Moreover they claimed that, in declaring that the case file should remain secret, the Appeal Court had not given any reasons which would constitute sufficient grounds for the measure, that the length of the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time, and that the restrictions on freedom of expression were neither necessary nor justified in this case. 22.  On 15 August 2005 the Supreme Court refused the applicants leave to appeal.