Device search overturned as contrary to EU law

The District Court of Varsinais-Suomi announced on January 20, 2025, its decision:

Device search conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation contrary to EU law and the Coercive Measures Act

The District Court of Varsinais-Suomi has decided on the question of the legality of a device search conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation, which was brought before it as a coercive measures matter.

On October 1, 2024, the detective superintendent leading the preliminary investigation had decided on a device search and designated as its targets all information technology devices in the possession of and seized from a person suspected of defamation and sexual harassment on October 2, 2024. These devices included four mobile phones of different makes, a laptop computer, and a tablet computer. After the data contained in the devices had been copied to the police information system, the seizure was revoked and the devices returned to the suspect. The suspect argued in the district court that the device search was not lawful, among other reasons, because it had not been decided by a court or by an independent administrative authority separate from the police.

The district court noted that, under the Coercive Measures Act, a device search may be conducted by decision of an official authorized to order detention if there is reason to suspect a crime for which the maximum penalty is at least 6 months' imprisonment and if the search can be expected to yield a document related to the crime under investigation. This had been the case here. The suspect had the possibility to have the device search decision reviewed by a court, but only after the fact.

However, national law must be set aside if it conflicts with European Union law and the conflict cannot be resolved by interpreting the national provision in accordance with EU law. The Court of Justice of the European Union had issued a preliminary ruling on the conditions for device searches, which must be derived from fundamental rights such as the suspect's right to privacy. Police access to all data contained in the devices of the person under investigation could result in even a very serious interference with fundamental rights. Therefore, the search required either prior control by a court or an independent administrative body and a balancing of different interests.

Based on the principle of primacy of EU law, the district court confirmed that the police did not have the authority to decide on the device search in question, and that subsequent judicial control could not be considered a sufficiently effective legal remedy. On the other hand, extending the search to all devices in the suspect's possession, some of which had been used by family members and some of which were the property of the suspect's employer, could not be considered justified, taking into account the principle of proportionality provided for in the Coercive Measures Act.

The district court ordered the copies of the device contents held by the police to be destroyed.

The preliminary investigation of the case is ongoing. The district court's decision, which is not final, has been classified as confidential for investigative reasons, except for the outcome and legal provisions.

Dr Markku Fredman served as the applicant's legal representative in the case.