At the end of January, a private individual filed a complaint with the Tallinn Administrative Court. They requested, among other things, confirmation of their right to take photos, audio, and video recordings of PPA buildings and premises from publicly accessible areas.

In a letter sent to the PPA, the court noted that it remains entirely unclear on what legal basis the agency can introduce a ban on photographing, audio recording, or video recording its buildings and premises from public spaces.

According to the court, the PPA can establish rules for buildings and premises under the agency's control but not for public spaces outside those areas.

"Such a ban cannot be established through an internal administrative act. Moreover, it is not possible to penalize someone for violating a ban that does not legally exist. Such a restriction could only stem from a law, regulation, or general order that has been made public in accordance with legal procedures," the administrative court stated.

The court added that this does not mean the PPA cannot check individuals who photograph or record PPA buildings and premises, for example, based on the Law Enforcement Act, to determine their intentions. "However, at this time, the court does not see any basis for the PPA to impose a general prohibition on such activities, let alone penalize individuals for it," the administrative court stated.

The court requested clarification from the PPA. In mid-February, the PPA responded and said its buildings are national defense objects. This means that security measures for protected sites are established based on the National Defense Act, two government regulations, and the Police and Border Guard Act. Additionally, the agency considers the Public Information Act.

Irina Punko, a lawyer representing the PPA, wrote in a letter to the court that if the recording of buildings, infrastructure, or individuals could pose a threat to the security of the site or people, a specific rule or requirement may be set in the site's security plan or internal regulations to prevent and mitigate such risks.

Punko added that the ban on photographing or recording PPA buildings from public spaces has not always been in place. "The security situation in Estonia and globally has changed significantly in recent years, and traditional so-called peacetime methods for preventing or countering various threats are no longer as effective," she said.

The lawyer also noted that even private recordings, such as those taken by tourists, can be used for data collection and analysis. "Therefore, an activity or hobby that is in itself legal and permitted may be exploited for hostile purposes, as it facilitates the planning of actions against the site," she wrote.

Punko said such measures may initially seem disproportionate to the public but are intended to prevent damage to sites and ensure security and individual rights.

PPA: We have the right to ask why a building is being photographed or filmed

The PPA said that since the court has not yet decided whether to proceed with the complaint, it cannot comment on the specific case.

Jaak Luksepp, a senior official with the PPA's physical security service, told ERR that each PPA-guarded site undergoes a risk assessment to determine necessary security measures, which include methods of guarding the site, the use of security systems and surveillance cameras, and security tactics.

He said all agency buildings are continuously monitored, and if suspicious activity is noticed around them, officers respond promptly. Signs prohibiting photography or filming have also been placed on protected buildings to discourage such activities.

"The purpose of this recommendation is to ensure that photo or video material does not end up in the hands of people with malicious intent. For example, photos could aid in planning an attack on a site," Luksepp said.

The official said that if someone still wishes to photograph a PPA-guarded building, the police have the right, under the Law Enforcement Act, to ask the person about their purpose in filming or photographing the site as a preventive security measure.

"If the person has no malicious intent, the situation may simply end with the police questioning them and informing them that publishing such photos is not advisable, as it could create security risks, such as aiding in the planning of an attack against the site. People must also consider existing data protection regulations. However, if it turns out that a person has malicious plans involving photo or video material, we will address the situation on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Internal Security Service has also pointed out that sending images of military facilities to aggressor states is punishable," Luksepp explained.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!