The Supreme Court says: investigative authorities may not request email inbox content without court permission.
This applies during criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court discussed Toomas Tamm's court case. The Security Police requested Tamm's email inbox content from Telia.
The Supreme Court found: requesting Tamm's email inbox content violated the law. Therefore, it cannot be used as evidence.
The Constitution protects the confidentiality of messages. Exceptions are permitted only with court permission.
The Supreme Court says: messages in transit are more strictly protected.
If an investigative authority examines a letter through a service provider, this constitutes interference with communication.
The Supreme Court found: requesting the entire email inbox content was wrong.
The Supreme Court says: in certain cases, information may be collected with court permission.
The Supreme Court did not discuss emails in the possession of an employer.
Toomas Tamm, Küllike Namm and Kalev Kangur were acquitted.