Field Notes

concept

Naming convicted people in Swedish media

StatusWorkingReviewdue UpdatedStands on9 sourcesSupportsnotes

Publishing a court report about an identified person triggers three legal questions at once. The publication is GDPR processing; it may be processing for journalistic purposes; and the identification may simultaneously satisfy the elements of defamation.

The questions operate at different levels:

Question What it decides
Is personal data collected, stored, edited, or disseminated? Whether the activity is GDPR processing. Publication almost always is.
Is the processing carried out for journalistic purposes? Whether Sweden may apply the Article 85 balance and its journalistic derogations.
Does the publication identify someone as criminal or blameworthy? Whether the starting elements of Swedish defamation are present.
Was publishing the identifying allegation defensible, and was it true or reasonably grounded? Whether the defamation exception prevents liability.
Is the medium covered by YGL? Which constitutional responsibility and procedure govern publication offences; it does not settle the other questions.

“Doxxing” is therefore a descriptive label rather than the decisive category. A name, photograph, address, personnummer, and full judgment can each add a different privacy intrusion and require a separate publication justification.

Journalism is purpose- and operation-specific

Journalistic purposes under Article 85 GDPR distinguishes journalistic processing from other handling of personal data under the GDPR. Legal Newsdesk Sweden C-199-24, the judgment that established the test, defines journalism broadly but requires a purpose of informing the public, editing or an editorial policy, factual verification, and compliance with journalistic ethical rules or codes.1 Payment and criminal-conviction subject matter do not themselves exclude journalism.2

The CJEU distinguished editorial work from simply making public criminal judgments available to anyone who pays. That second operation did not appear journalistic without the required purpose and practices.3 The judgment therefore classifies operations rather than publishers. Its reasoning calls for examination of the processing performed for the particular product or publication.

HD drew a similar practical line in 2025. It allowed restrictions against distributing criminal judgments with their personal data or making the data searchable, while preserving the recipient’s ability to use personal data in editorially processed news text and news material.4 That disclosure decision is strong evidence that Swedish law can distinguish court reporting from raw or searchable document supply, though it does not itself settle publisher liability.

Truth does not by itself defeat defamation

Swedish defamation begins when a person is identified as criminal or otherwise blameworthy in a way apt to expose that person to others’ contempt. Naming someone as convicted ordinarily meets that threshold. No liability follows if giving the information was defensible in the circumstances and the publisher proves that it was true or had reasonable grounds for it.5

The court judgment normally supplies strong proof of truth about what the court decided. Defensibility is a second question with its own answer: the public interest in the case and the public interest in knowing this person’s identity are separate propositions.

Relevant considerations can include:

  • the seriousness, recency, and continuing relevance of the offence;
  • whether the person has a public role or present position of trust;
  • whether identification is needed to explain an institutional failure or other matter of public concern;
  • the quality of verification, contextual accuracy, and opportunity to respond;
  • the subject’s age and vulnerability;
  • how widely, prominently, and persistently the identity is distributed;
  • whether the publication reveals addresses, family relationships, victims, witnesses, or other details unnecessary to the public-interest account.

Private people can be named when these factors support it. The factors explain why the issue cannot be resolved by saying either “the judgment is public” or “the person was convicted.”

Sweden’s voluntary media-ethics rules reflect the same distinction. They advise great caution with names and identifying details unless an evident public interest requires identification.6 In one decision, MO accepted reporting about a serious offence against a police officer but found no compelling public interest in naming and picturing the young private individual.7 In another, an investigation involving a powerful football agent was accepted because the subject matter, the person’s role, the reporting, and the opportunity to respond supported publication.8

These decisions supply concrete evidence about the editorial and ethical practices that the CJEU says are relevant. They operate outside the criminal-law test, and membership in the system is not a condition of journalism.

Google can supply the missing person index

A publisher does not need to offer an internal people-search field for a named article to function as a person-centred criminal profile. When an external search engine indexes the article, the person’s name becomes the lookup key and the result ranking becomes the distribution mechanism.

GC and Others C-136-17 holds that search-engine indexing is processing separate from and additional to the source publication. It can seriously increase the privacy intrusion by giving users a structured overview of the person and exposing a page to people who otherwise would not find it. Google is therefore independently responsible for its name-search result even if the source page is lawful journalism.

Dumpen selected judgments is technically configured for ordinary search indexing. Its preserved HTML has no noindex directive and includes canonical, pagination, feed, and structured search metadata. This makes external name-search discovery a foreseeable part of the publication’s reach.

Functionally, a first-position result containing a full name, photograph, address, criminal judgment, and hostile framing can resemble a permanent conviction dossier, even though the site and Google remain separate controllers. That resemblance makes the necessity of each identifying detail, the ethics of the presentation, the extent of dissemination, and the consequences for the person materially harder to treat as incidental. It does not settle whether the source article is journalistic under C-199/24.

For defamation, foreseeable name-search prominence and persistence can increase the relevant manner and extent of dissemination and the seriousness of the resulting harm. The judgment may prove the underlying conviction, but added factual allegations require their own support, and aggressive framing remains relevant to whether the publication as a whole was defensible.

For Google, IMY right to remove search results states that a result leading to criminal information must be removed unless its continued display for the person’s name is strictly necessary for freedom of information. The source can remain online after de-referencing. A Google refusal is an interim commercial decision: it can be challenged through IMY or in a civil action.

The crime’s seriousness makes that challenge harder to win, and it remains winnable. Conseil d’État 401258 is a direct counterexample to a categorical child-sex-offence exception. It found name-linked access to accurate press reports about sexual touching of minors not strictly necessary after weighing the private person’s lack of notoriety, time elapsed, reintegration harm, and the permanent access produced by Google. The seven-year prison sentence and continuing socio-judicial supervision did not make identity permanently relevant by themselves.

The publication can change character over time

An article may be defensible when a serious case is current but become harder to justify as a permanently name-searchable profile after the person has served the sentence and the story has lost present relevance.

In Hurbain v Belgium, the ECHR found no violation of press freedom when a newspaper was required to anonymize a decades-old online archive article about a rehabilitated private person. The continued archive remained available, but the person’s name no longer functioned as an indefinite virtual criminal record.9 Genuine journalism at first publication therefore buys no guarantee of perpetual named availability, though a Belgian ECHR judgment binds Swedish courts only as interpretive authority.

Applying the distinctions to Dumpen

Dumpen runs several different operations, recorded in Dumpen selected judgments and Dumpen court monitoring weeks 21 and 22 2026. Their likely characterization differs:

Dumpen operation Journalism assessment Identification and defamation assessment
Weekly court schedules using case numbers, ages, and allegations without names Strongly resembles ordinary edited court reporting. Lower identification risk, although combinations can still identify someone locally.
A selected, verified article explaining a recent judgment and its public significance Journalism is plausible, especially with original reporting, context, and response. Naming still requires its own defensibility; seriousness alone does not settle it.
A short item consisting mainly of name, place, offence, sentence, and a judgment copy Weaker evidence of journalism and closer to the Lexbase operation criticized by the CJEU. The article identifies the person as criminal; truth does not answer whether naming was defensible.
Hosting or supplying the full judgment A separate dissemination operation from the edited article; necessity and safeguards need their own assessment. It can expose addresses and data about victims, relatives, and witnesses that add little to the report.
An article joining an earlier conviction to a new decoy investigation Selection, synthesis, and original reporting support a journalistic purpose. Joining a spent conviction to a fresh allegation raises the stakes on accuracy, present relevance, and the opportunity to respond.
A long-lived archive externally searchable by private people’s names Original journalism may still exist, but Google can turn separate articles into a person index and perpetual identification becomes harder to justify as relevance fades. Passage of time, rehabilitation, result prominence, address and image disclosure, searchability, and continuing harm become increasingly important.

This is an assessment framework rather than a prediction of how any particular court will rule. The conclusion it supports: Dumpen’s edited court reporting is a materially stronger journalism case than indiscriminate access to a conviction database, while its thinnest named judgment posts and full-document distribution are the closest Lexbase comparators.

An utgivningsbevis leaves this distinction intact. It gives the website YGL coverage and fixes responsibility for protected publications, while each personal-data operation keeps its own journalism assessment and each identification its own defensibility test.

Swedish application of C-199/24 to named judgment articles and mixed editorial databases is tracked in the open question Will Swedish people-search services survive GDPR enforcement.

Unmasking pseudonymous public figures shows the same structure outside Swedish law and outside crime reporting: a publisher’s own judgment about the public interest in identifying someone, rather than the accuracy of the underlying facts, is what a public-interest defence of identification actually has to justify.

  1. Legal Newsdesk Sweden C-199-24, Case C-199/24, ND v Legal Newsdesk Sweden AB, judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2026, ECLI:EU:C:2026:564, paragraph 73. A preliminary ruling on a reference from Attunda tingsrätt, so it settles the interpretation of Article 85 and leaves the application to the Swedish court. ↩

  2. Legal Newsdesk Sweden C-199-24, Case C-199/24, ND v Legal Newsdesk Sweden AB, judgment of 9 July 2026, ECLI:EU:C:2026:564, paragraph 69. ↩

  3. Legal Newsdesk Sweden C-199-24, Case C-199/24, ND v Legal Newsdesk Sweden AB, judgment of 9 July 2026, ECLI:EU:C:2026:564, paragraphs 74–77. These are the paragraphs setting out the journalistic-purpose criteria: editing or adaptation, or at least an identifiable editorial policy, compliance with the profession’s ethical codes, and verification of the factual allegations. ↩

  4. Högsta domstolen, “EU:s dataskyddsförordning kan få betydelse för om det råder sekretess för personuppgifter i brottmålsdomar även på det grundlagsskyddade området”, February 2025, the court’s announcement of its decisions in GDPR and the criminal judgments I and II. A press notice rather than the decisions themselves, so it gives the outcome without the reasoning’s case numbering. ↩

  5. Brottsbalk (1962:700), chapter 5, sections 1–2, Svensk författningssamling. The consolidated text as amended, which is the statute itself rather than a commentary on it. ↩

  6. Medieombudsmannen, “Publicitetsreglerna — grunden i det medieetiska systemet”. Industry-drawn ethical guidelines, described by MO itself as a framework of principles rather than exact rules. They bind participating media through the self-regulatory system, not through law. ↩

  7. Mediernas Etiknämnd, “Nyheter Idag klandras för namnpublicering av brottsdömd”, 18 November 2021, exp. nr. 50/2021, dnr. 21105. The panel found no oavvisligt allmänintresse in publishing the name and picture. ↩

  8. Mediernas Etiknämnd, “Expressen frias för granskning av fotbollsagent”, 27 March 2025, exp. nr. 16/2025, dnr. 24290. The acquitting counterpart to the Nyheter Idag decision: the subject’s position meant he had to tolerate the scrutiny, and he was given the chance to answer it. ↩

  9. Hurbain v. Belgium (application no. 57292/16), European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, judgment of 4 July 2023, no violation of Article 10 by 12 votes to 5; Registry press release, ECHR 208 (2023). Cited from the press release rather than the judgment, so it carries the outcome and the Court’s own summary of its reasoning but not the paragraph numbering an argument would need. The five dissents matter here: the margin was narrow on a question the wiki treats as settled direction. ↩

Built on 9 sources (9 external).

Working out connections…