Recording job interviews in Finland: the eavesdropping rule, the necessity requirement and the Ombudsman's decisions

In Finland, an interviewer who records their own job interview does not commit a crime: the eavesdropping offence in chapter 24, section 5 of the Criminal Code covers only speech "not intended for" the person recording, and the Data Protection Ombudsman has said that recording one's own communication is not criminalized. An employer or agency that records must still tell the candidate before the recording starts, as the Ombudsman held in a 2021 decision on a secretly recorded meeting, and the Act on the Protection of Privacy in Working Life lets it process only data "directly necessary" for the employment relationship, a limit the candidate's consent cannot widen. This is the position as of November 2026.

This page adds Finland to our country series alongside Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany and Austria. It is for recruiters, agency consultants and hiring managers who interview candidates located in Finland by video or phone, including from the US. The binding texts are in Finnish and Swedish on Finlex, the Ministry of Justice's legal database; quotations below are our translations from Finnish.

Finland's rules at a glance

Is it a crime to record a job interview in Finland?

Not for a participant. Chapter 24, section 5 of the Criminal Code, headed "eavesdropping," punishes anyone who "unlawfully, with a technical device, listens to or records" either a conversation or other sound from private life "not intended for their knowledge" in a place protected by domestic peace, such as a home, or, anywhere else, speech made in secret "not intended for their knowledge or that of any other outsider." The penalty is a fine or up to one year in prison, and attempt is punishable. Under section 12, the prosecutor may bring charges only if the injured party reports the offence for prosecution or a very important public interest requires it.

A candidate's answers are meant for the interviewer, so the offence is aimed at outsiders. The Data Protection Ombudsman reads it the same way. In guidance attached to a February 24, 2021 decision, it said a private individual "may record calls in which they themselves take part, either as caller or recipient," that recording one's own communication is possible under the Constitution and is not criminalized in the Criminal Code, but that "it is a different matter, however, how one intends to use the recordings." In a 2007 statement on workplace recordings it added that good practice is still to tell the other party, "especially if the conversation is intended to be held in confidence between two parties."

The outsider rule is where a recruiter can go wrong: a colleague who listens in without being on the call, or a service that captures a call it is not part of, is the person section 5 is written for. Chapter 38, section 3 also punishes unlawfully obtaining the content of a call "being transmitted in a telecommunications network," with a fine or up to two years in prison.

Why you still have to tell the candidate first

The criminal code answers only half the question. An employer or agency that records an interview is a data controller, and the GDPR requires the Article 13 information "at the time when personal data are obtained." The Ombudsman's 2021 decision (record number 3343/163/20, final) shows what that means in Finland. A company's managing director had recorded a handover meeting with two clients in their home on his phone, kept in his pocket, as evidence in case of a dispute. The clients found out later by email. The Ombudsman held that the company's information about the recording did not meet Articles 5(1)(a), 12(1) and 13 GDPR because the clients had not been told "before the recording started," issued a reprimand, and ordered the company to give one of them a copy of the recording.

For interviews the lesson is simple: say you are recording or transcribing before anything is captured, and put the rest of the Article 13 information (purpose, lawful basis, recipients such as a client, retention period and the candidate's rights) in the invitation or your candidate privacy notice. For the lawful basis itself, see legitimate interest in recruitment.

Does Finland's necessity requirement allow a full recording?

This is the Finnish rule most likely to surprise a foreign recruiter. Section 3 of the Act on the Protection of Privacy in Working Life (759/2004) says an employer "may process only personal data that is directly necessary for the employee's employment relationship," and that the necessity requirement "cannot be derogated from with the employee's consent." Section 2 applies the Act "where applicable, also to job applicants," and section 4 requires the employer to collect personal data "primarily from the employee themselves," with consent needed to collect it from anywhere else.

Two practical consequences follow:

• A yes to recording does not make everything on the recording lawful. If an interview drifts into health, family plans or other matters not needed for the job, consent does not cure it. Keep questions to the role, and do not keep what you should not have collected.
• Ask whether you need audio at all. A transcript and structured notes may meet the purpose with less data than an audio file, which also captures voice, background and anyone else in the room.

Do you have to involve employees before introducing the tool?

Often, yes. Section 4(3) of the Privacy in Working Life Act says the collection of personal data "when hiring and during employment" must be dealt with in the dialogue required by the Co-operation Act (1333/2021). That Act, as amended in 2025, applies to undertakings that regularly employ at least 50 people, and its section 12 lists both that data collection and the purpose, introduction and methods of technical monitoring of employees among the dialogue topics. A recording or scoring tool also captures the interviewers, who are employees.

Smaller employers are not exempt from everything: under section 21 of the Privacy in Working Life Act they must, "before decision-making," give employees or their representatives a chance to be heard on technical monitoring, and every employer must then define the purpose and methods and inform employees. Breaching that second duty is an offence under section 24.

Are AI scores and personality ratings treated as tests?

Possibly. Section 13 of the Privacy in Working Life Act allows personality and aptitude assessments only with the person's consent, and the employer must ensure that "reliable testing methods" are used, that the testers are competent and that the data obtained are accurate. On request, the person must receive the written statement from the assessment free of charge. Testing without consent is an offence under section 24. A transcription tool whose notes a person reviews is not a test, but a feature that rates personality traits or aptitude from interview answers may be, so get consent for it separately and check it against Article 22 GDPR and the EU AI Act's high-risk rules.

Can candidates get the recording, or the reasons for a rejection?

Yes to the recording. Recorded voice is personal data; the Ombudsman's 2021 decision cites the Supreme Administrative Court's 2010 ruling (2094/1/09) to that effect, finds that the recording's use as evidence in a pending dispute was no ground to withhold it, and says the copy may be given in electronic form. A September 23, 2026 decision (TSV/4322/2025, not final) closed a complaint only after a company that had refused a caller its recording of a customer-service call handed over the audio. Expect interview recordings to be requested the same way; our candidate data access requests guide has a workflow.

The reasons can be requested too. Under section 10 of the Act on Equality between Women and Men, an employer must, on request and without delay, give a written account to an applicant who believes they were passed over in breach of its ban on gender discrimination, showing "the selection criteria applied," the chosen person's education and experience, and other "clearly demonstrable merits" behind the choice. Notes that tie each rating to what the candidate said make that account easier to write.

How long can you keep recordings and transcripts?

No statute fixes a period, but two discrimination deadlines set the reference point. Under section 26 of the Non-Discrimination Act, a compensation claim "in recruitment situations" must be made "within one year of the time when the passed-over applicant learned of the selection decision." Under section 12 of the Equality Act, as amended by Act 805/2026 in force since October 1, 2026, an action for compensation must be brought "within two years of the breach." Both periods pause while a case is before the National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal.

Those deadlines can justify keeping the notes and scorecards that explain a decision. Full audio is more intrusive and harder to justify for the same period, so a shorter audio retention, with the written record kept longer, is easier to defend under the GDPR's storage limitation. Our retention policy template gives the structure.

What if you interview a candidate in Finland from the US?

An employer or agency established in the EU is covered by the GDPR under Article 3(1); a US company with no EU establishment is covered only where Article 3(2) applies (offering goods or services to people in the EU, or monitoring their behavior there). Being a participant keeps your own recording outside the eavesdropping offence, and your own state's law governs your side of the call; see two-party consent states. A recording or transcript sent to a US vendor needs a transfer basis under Chapter V of the GDPR, such as the Commission's adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (for certified recipients only) or standard contractual clauses.

Can you use AI note takers or transcription?

Yes, with notice before you start, a necessity check on what the tool keeps, and short retention. We found no Finnish decision on whether an AI service that joins a call as a separate participant is an "outsider" under the eavesdropping section, which is one more reason to name the tool and its vendor when you ask. Ask the vendor whether it keeps audio, where it processes data, and whether it trains models on your interviews. Interview Signal, for example, captures audio on the interviewer's own computer with no bot joining the call, shows a read-aloud consent line with a one-click pause, and does not retain audio after transcription; the transcript is still personal data under the rules above.

A consent line for interviews in Finland

Ennen kuin aloitamme: haluaisin [nauhoittaa keskustelumme /
käyttää ohjelmaa, joka litteroi keskustelumme], jotta saan
vastauksesi kirjattua tarkasti. Käytämme [tallennetta /
litterointia] vain tässä rekrytoinnissa, näytämme sen vain
[asiakkaalle / rekrytoivalle esihenkilölle] ja poistamme sen
[aika] haun päättymisen jälkeen. Sopiiko tämä? Voit kieltäytyä
tai pyytää taukoa milloin tahansa, eikä se vaikuta hakemukseesi.

(Before we start: I'd like to [record our conversation / use
software that transcribes our conversation] so I capture your
answers accurately. We use the [recording / transcript] only for
this recruitment, show it only to [the client / the hiring
manager] and delete it [period] after the search ends. Is that
okay? You can say no or ask for a pause at any time, and it won't
affect your application.)

Finland has two official languages; for Swedish-speaking candidates, the line on our Sweden page can be adapted. More wording is in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist before you record interviews in Finland

• Candidate told before recording or live transcription starts, and the answer noted.
• Article 13 information in the invitation or privacy notice, including any client who will receive the recording.
• Questions and stored content limited to what is directly necessary for the job; consent not relied on to widen it.
• Co-operation dialogue held (50 or more employees), or employees heard on monitoring, before the tool goes live.
• Any personality or aptitude scoring treated as a test: separate consent, reliable method, statement on request.
• Access requests answered with a copy of the recording; written account of selection grounds available.
• Audio deleted early; notes and scorecards kept no longer than the claim periods require.
• US vendors certified under the Data Privacy Framework or covered by standard contractual clauses.

Also interviewing elsewhere in the Nordics? See Sweden, Norway and Denmark.