Estonia’s Tallinn Administrative Court has ruled that there is no legal basis under Estonian law to prohibit photographing police buildings from public streets, rejecting arguments by the police that such activity can be banned.
In a decision published Wednesday, the court upheld a complaint filed by a private individual, Janno Saar, and found that individuals have the right to take photo, audio and video recordings of buildings and premises of the Police and Border Guard Board, or PPA, from publicly accessible areas not under PPA control. The ruling also covers recording in the immediate vicinity of PPA buildings.
The court said existing legislation does not provide grounds for imposing a general ban on such recordings. The PPA had previously argued that a prohibition could be justified under several laws, but the court concluded none of them establishes such a restriction.
Saar also sought a ruling affirming his right to record inside PPA buildings and on PPA premises where public access is not restricted. The court declined to consider that part of the complaint, returning it on procedural grounds. That ruling has taken effect.
The PPA acknowledged during court proceedings that Estonian law does not establish a general ban on recording police buildings from public space.
Estonian public broadcaster ERR reported last March that the dispute stemmed from Saar’s claim that he has the right to photograph or film police buildings in public areas. Police argued they could prohibit such activity, citing changes in the security situation.
In its response to the court last year, the PPA said police buildings qualify as national defense objects and that security measures for guarded facilities are based on the National Defence Act, two government regulations and the Police and Border Guard Act. The agency also referenced the Public Information Act.
However, the court decision notes that during the hearing, the PPA’s representative stated that “such a general prohibition on audio or video recording from public space does not arise from current legal regulation,” though police retain the right to question individuals to determine what they are doing and why. After that acknowledgment, the dispute over whether a legal ban exists was effectively resolved.
Irina Punko, a lawyer representing the PPA, wrote in a response to the court last year that restrictions on recording had not always existed but argued that security conditions in Estonia and globally have changed in recent years. She said traditional peacetime security measures are no longer sufficient to address modern threats.
Punko said such measures may appear disproportionate but are intended to prevent damage to facilities and to safeguard public safety and individual rights.
Jaak Luksepp, a senior official in the PPA’s physical security service, told ERR last year that police continuously guard their buildings and respond promptly to suspicious activity. Signs warning against photographing or filming have been installed at guarded facilities, he said.
Luksepp added that under the Law Enforcement Act, police have the authority to question individuals who are recording police buildings in order to assess potential threats and determine the purpose of the activity.
The ruling may be appealed to the Tallinn Circuit Court within 30 days.
—
