According to the Ministry of Justice, courts issued 771 new surveillance warrants last year involving 369 individuals. However, according to sworn attorney Carri Ginter, the authorities are withholding information on the total number of individual phone numbers that were wiretapped.

"Right now, the situation in Estonia is that the state is running a media campaign aimed at convincing everyone that people are not being wiretapped excessively. But for some reason, the state refuses to disclose how many phone numbers were actually intercepted," Ginter said.

According to the attorney, the problem is not only that the data is not being fully disclosed, but also that the security agency itself decides whether surveillance activities constituted a sufficient intrusion into a person's privacy to warrant notifying them about the wiretapping.

"The police are acting as both judge and jury in a situation where they themselves decide whether wiretapping you violated your privacy enough to inform you about it. Imagine secretly listening to your partner's conversations and then deciding for yourself whether it was underhanded enough," Ginter said.

In April, Ginter wanted to listen to a recording of a wiretapped conversation with his own client. To do so, he had to travel from Tallinn to Pärnu.

If a defendant wants their attorney to review a recording outside their home city, they must pay not only for travel expenses but also for the attorney's hourly fees. In Ginter's case, the trip cost the client approximately €800.

According to the attorney, he was not allowed to review the recordings in Tallinn. The Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) said the reason was that the investigator handling the case was based in Pärnu and could only explain the details of the investigation there. However, because Ginter was involved in the case only as a person whose conversations had been intercepted and was not accused of any wrongdoing, the investigator could not have disclosed details of the investigation to him anyway.

"In reality, there is no reason I should have to listen to it in Pärnu. The practical consideration is that they are humiliating me and making it expensive for the client to go to Pärnu in the hope that the wiretapped person simply will not show up. That way, the prosecutor also does not have to deal with this inconvenient body of evidence in court," Ginter said, adding that the state is making a deliberate effort to secure unfair convictions.

Police also want a simpler way of sharing surveillance material

Under the current Code of Criminal Procedure, a person affected by surveillance activities may review the material only if doing so does not infringe on the privacy of others, reveal state secrets or disclose the identities of those who carried out the surveillance.

According to Mehis Mets, a police lieutenant colonel with the PPA's Prevention and Criminal Proceedings Bureau, a person who has come under police scrutiny must physically travel to the prefecture conducting the investigation in order to review the materials.

"If the proceedings are being handled in the jurisdiction of the Western Prefecture, the material can be reviewed, for example, in Pärnu; if it is in the jurisdiction of the Eastern Prefecture, then for example in Jõhvi. At a person's request, and for a compelling reason, surveillance materials may also be reviewed at a police station in another city," Mets said.

At the same time, Mets acknowledged that the current procedure for reviewing documents is outdated and should be changed.

"We see two main problems: the amount of time it takes for police officers and the inconvenience to the person who has requested access to the material. Police officers must always be present while the material is being reviewed, which results in a significant time burden," Mets explained.

The PPA has also discussed changing the procedure for reviewing surveillance material with the Ministry of the Interior, though no solution has yet been reached.

"Although digital access would undoubtedly be the most convenient option, at present we do not believe it is possible given the rights of third parties. We must ensure that granting access does not result in additional infringements on the rights of other people whose voices or faces may appear in audio or video recordings," Tamm said.

Oversight of the activities of surveillance agencies is carried out by the Riigikogu Security Authorities Surveillance Select Committee.

Each year, the Ministry of Justice publishes a report on its website based on data received from surveillance agencies, the Prosecutor's Office and the courts. The report includes the types and number of surveillance files opened, as well as the number of surveillance warrants issued.

ERR also contacted the Ministry of the Interior for comment, but had not received a response by the time of publication.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!