RK - 3-22-2263

Summary

The Estonian Supreme Court addressed a case regarding access to court-held documents, clarifying how GDPR interacts with public information requests. The court ruled that requests requiring legal assessment still fall under public information frameworks, but upheld the refusal to disclose archived criminal case files due to extensive personal data.

Full text

Help RK - 3-22-2263: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search Newer edit →VisualWikitext Revision as of 12:41, 21 May 2026 view source Bms (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators49 edits Tag: submission [1.0]Newer edit → (No difference) Revision as of 12:41, 21 May 2026 RK - 3-22-2263 Court: RK (Estonia) Jurisdiction: Estonia Relevant Law: Article 5 GDPR Article 6(1)(e) GDPR Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 9(2) GDPR Decided: 16.04.2026 Published: Parties: Harri Värs Harju County Court National Case Number/Name: 3-22-2263 European Case Law Identifier: Appeal from: Tallin Circuit Court (Estonia) Appeal to: Unknown Original Language(s): Estonian Original Source: Riigi Teataja (in Estonian) Initial Contributor: bms The Estonian Supreme Court clarified that Article 86 GDPR permits limits on access to criminal files, but requires a case-by-case review for other official documents. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources 4 English Machine Translation of the Decision English Summary Facts The data subject asked the county court (Harju County Court) to disclose several documents held by the court. The request covered three different categories of information. First, the data subject wanted to inspect and copy the file of a closed criminal case. Second, requested the applications submitted by third parties who had asked to access another criminal case file. Third, requested the employment contract and job description of the court’s press officer. He also asked whether the press officer had received any disciplinary sanctions. The court answered only part of the request. It stated that no disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on the press officer. However, it refused the remaining parts. It considered that the request required legal assessment and could therefore be treated as a request for clarification rather than as an access-to-information request. It also argued that the criminal case file and the third-party access applications contained personal data and restricted information. The employment contract was also refused on the basis that it contained information subject to access restrictions. The complainant challenged the refusal before the administrative court, which dismissed the complaint and upheld the county court refusal. He then appealed to the second instance court (Tallinn Circuit Court), which also dismissed the appeal. The data subject later appealed to the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether county court had correctly handled the request as a public information request and how access to court-held documents should be reconciled with the protection of personal data. The case raised issues under Article 6 GDPR, since disclosure of personal data by a public authority requires a legal basis; Article 9 GDPR, since archived criminal case files may contain special categories of personal data; and Article 86 GDPR, since the dispute concerned public access to official documents held by a public authority. Holding The Supreme Court partially upheld the appeal. It first held that the complainant’s submission had to be treated as a public information request. The fact that the court had to review documents, assess access restrictions, anonymise information or redact personal data did not change the nature of the request. In other words, an authority cannot avoid the stricter access-to-information framework merely because the request requires a legal and factual assessment. On the archived criminal case file, the court accepted the refusal. It found that such files contain extensive personal data, including data about defendants, victims, witnesses and other persons mentioned in the proceedings. Some of that information may also fall under Article 9 GDPR. The complainant relied on a general interest in checking whether the criminal proceedings had been fair, but the court considered that this was not strong enough to justify access to the whole file. Since any disclosure would require a valid legal basis under Article 6 GDPR and, where sensitive data was involved, an Article 9 GDPR condition, the court held that the rights and interests of the persons mentioned in the file prevailed. However, the court reached a different conclusion for the third-party access requests and the press officer’s employment contract. These documents could not be refused automatically just because they contained personal data. Under Article 86 GDPR, public access to official documents and data protection rights must be reconciled, not treated as mutually exclusive. The authority therefore had to examine the actual documents and assess whether disclosure was possible in part, for example by removing names, contact details or other personal data. The Supreme Court ordered county court to reconsider these parts of the request, while leaving the refusal of access to the archived criminal case file in place. Comment Share your comments here! Further Resources Share blogs or news articles here! English Machine Translation of the Decision The decision below is a machine translation of the Estonian original. Please refer to the Estonian original for more details. S U R I G I C O U T I N G C O U T ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD JUDGMENT In the name of the Republic of Estonia Case number 3-22-2263 Date of decision 16 April 2026 Composition of the court Chairman Ivo Pilving, members Oliver Kask, Hannes Kiris, Julia Laffranque, Saale Laos, Heiki Loot and Nele Siitam Case Harri Värs's appeal to oblige Harju County Court to issue information Parties to the proceedings Appellant Harri Värs Respondent Harju County Court Contested court decision Tallinn Circuit Court's decision of 7 March 2025 Basis of the proceedings in the Supreme Court Harri Värs's appeal in cassation Review of the case Written procedure THE S U R I G I C O U T DECIDES 1. To partially grant the appeal in cassation. 2. To annul the decisions of the Tallinn Circuit Court of 7 March 2025 and the Tallinn Administrative Court of 10 October 2023 in the part by which the complaint was dismissed regarding the employment contract of the Harju County Court's press representative, and in the part concerning the applications of persons outside the proceedings in criminal case No. 1-19-8262. 3. To make a new decision in the annulled part, obliging the Harju County Court to re-adjudicate the request for information of Harri Värs of 17 August 2022 in the part concerning the application to examine the employment contract of the Harju County Court's press representative and the applications of persons outside the proceedings in criminal case No. 1-19-8262. 4. To leave the decisions unchanged in the part concerning the resolution of the request for information in connection with the application to examine the job description of the Harju County Court's press representative. 5. To amend the reasons for the decision of the Tallinn Circuit Court of 7 March 2025 in other respects in accordance with the reasons for the current decision. 6. To leave the parties to the proceedings to bear their own costs. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 1. On 17 August 2022, Harri Värs submitted an appeal to the Harju County Court, requesting the following: 1) access to the materials of criminal case No. 1-15-11024 in order to “familiarize himself with the materials of the file from cover to cover and make copies with his personal camera” or to familiarize himself with the contents of the file. If the file has been liquidated, then to receive a document reflecting this; 2) to send the applications of all persons outside the proceedings who have requested access to the materials of criminal case No. 1-19-8262; 3) to send the employment contract and job description of the Harju County Court press secretary; 3-22-2263 2(12) 4) send information on whether the press representative has been imposed disciplinary sanctions, and documents proving the latter. 2. On 9 Se

Entities