The Supreme Court of Estonia assessed the constitutionality of denying access to the internet and to mobile phones and other devices capable of transmitting and receiving information to applicants for international protection in detention centres.

The applicant considered that a fully-fledged ban on the use of the internet and mobile phones in detention centres can interfere with the exercise of fundamental rights, including the right to a private and family life, to free access to information, and to freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court highlighted that, according to the Estonian Constitution, restrictions of fundamental rights stemming from regulations should be in conformity with the Constitution. It noted that the Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act (OLPEA) did not contain any general prohibition on access to mobiles or the internet in detention centres, meaning that the scrutinised prohibition stemmed from a regulation.

The court recalled that detention centres did not serve the same purpose as prisons since applicants in detention centres are not serving a sentence but are detained to ensure they fulfil their administrative obligations if other supervision measures cannot be applied. Thus, the court stated that the specific security environment of prisons could not automatically be implemented in detention centres.

Analysing the relevant provisions of the OLPEA, the court observed the grounds for possible restrictions on items in detention centres i.e. if they endanger the life or health of others or the security of centre, if they prevent compliance with hygiene requirements, or if they disturb others. The court added that this provision left room for interpretation but did not grant the legislature the right to impose a general prohibition on mobiles and access to the internet. However, the court noted that the OLPEA provided for the possibility for heads of detention centres or officials appointed by them to restrict access to certain items or communication channels, balancing the applicants’ fundamental rights and the security of the detention centre. The Supreme Court proceeded to explain that this provision would be devoid of sense if the OLPEA also contained a general prohibition on mobile phones and the internet. Moreover, the court highlighted that the OLPEA imposes an obligation on the State to ensure the possibility of using public communication channels, including internet, in detention centres.

The Supreme Court concluded that the regulation provisions containing the general prohibition to access mobile phones and the internet in detention centres were unconstitutional. The court added that restrictions in person, in functions, in time and in space were still conceivable under the OLPEA provision which granted this discretionary power to heads of detentions centres or officials appointed by them.