Prosecutor's Office may only use phone records collected for commercial purposes
Justice and Digital Affairs Minister Liisa Pakosta told ERR that the Prosecutor's Office may use as evidence only communications data that has been collected for business purposes.
In a ruling issued in March, the Supreme Court of Estonia found that in criminal proceedings, only communications data collected for business purposes may be used as evidence and that the burden of proving this purpose lies with the Prosecutor's Office.
As recently as last week, attorney Carri Ginter said he had received a notification from the police stating that phone calls between him and his client had been intercepted last year. In Ginter's assessment, the police had acted in a manner incompatible with the rule of law.
Leading state prosecutor Sigrid Nurme then said that the automatic recording of calls does not mean they are being listened to.
On Wednesday, however, Liisa Pakosta confirmed on ERR's "Otse uudistemajast" webcast that since the Supreme Court ruling, the obligation to prove the origin of the data rests with the Prosecutor's Office.
"The prosecution bears full responsibility for proving that this data was collected based on the telecommunications company's own commercial interests," the minister said, adding: "In fact, this decision had already been in place — that we do not go looking for this so-called 'loophole' for criminal proceedings."
The minister added that a data-tracking mechanism for investigative authorities has been included in the coalition agreement, which will notify individuals after an investigation has concluded that they were under surveillance.
The Supreme Court found in a ruling already back in 2021 that the state cannot require access to telephone communications data for criminal investigations as Estonia's system of mass data retention and use is in conflict with European Union law.
While the Estonian Ministry of the Interior wants to amend the Electronic Communications Act so that a mandatory list of data to be collected would still remain in place for companies, Pakosta disagreed.
"We will not proceed with such legislative amendments because European Union law indeed does not allow this kind of generalized surveillance," Pakosta said on the program.
--
Editor: Märten Hallismaa, Marcus Turovski
