Court rejects Tartu deputy mayor's surveillance complaint against ISS
The first-tier Tartu Administrative Court has dismissed a complaint filed by Tartu Deputy Mayor Priit Humal (Isamaa) against the Internal Security Service (ISS)
The court rejected Humal's claim that the ISS has demonstrably been carrying out covert operations in relation to him.
Humal submitted a request to the ISS for information on covert measures he alleges were taken against him, under the Security Authorities Act, asserting that the presence of covert actions of that kind used against him had been proven. Humal asked the court to oblige ISS to provide the information requested in his application.
The ISS, known in Estonian as Kapo, responded to Humal's allegations, stating that it is not possible for them to confirm or deny the carrying out of such operations. The court dispute concerned whether the ISS had lawfully resolved Humal's request for information.
In its decision issued on Thursday, the Tartu Administrative Court stated that it does not agree with Humal's claim that covert measures taken against him have been proven. "On the contrary, the information cited by the plaintiff, which served as the trigger for initiating criminal proceedings, could have emerged in the course of operations carried out in respect of any person or persons," the court found.
The court held that when a security authority processes personal data in the performance of its duties, the processing of that personal data is governed, as a special regulation, by the Security Authorities Act (known in Estonian by the abbreviation JAS). The response given to Humal is consistent with the provisions of the JAS, the court noted.
The court added that informing a person of covert measures carried out under the JAS can take place only on the grounds and in the manner provided for in the JAS, with one of the preconditions being the removal of the classification of the information collected through the covert measure.
"A person cannot demand to be informed, including confirmation that no measures have been taken, at a time and in a manner of their own choosing. The legal framework provides for sufficient oversight to ensure that the procedure for processing personal data laid down in the JAS is followed," the court stated.
For these reasons, the court found that there were no grounds to grant the complaint or to order a new review of the complainant's request.
--
Editor: Andrew Whyte, Marko Tooming
