The Criminal Records Database Act lists offenses for which the names and personal identification codes of convicted people remain publicly available in court rulings online even after their criminal records have been expunged.

As of June 9 this year, the provision affected 8,714 people, including 5,362 convicted of handling a large quantity of drugs, defined as at least 10 doses.

Five people convicted of crimes between 2006 and 2017 asked the court to stop publishing their information. Four had been convicted of drug offenses and one of arson.

The applicants argued that publishing information about expunged convictions harmed their reputations and those of their family members and made it harder for them to support themselves and find work. The Tartu Circuit Court found their requests justified and initiated a constitutional review of the provision.

In two rulings published Tuesday, the Supreme Court emphasized that the constitution allows interference with a person's private life to protect public order and the rights and freedoms of others. "Publishing information about expunged convictions serves the legitimate aim of preventing new serious crimes and protecting other people's fundamental rights," the court said. But it found that indefinitely publishing the information of everyone convicted of a drug offense or arson was neither proportionate nor justified.

The Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court that the drug offenses covered by Section 184 of the Penal Code can vary greatly in severity, depending, for example, on the substance and quantity involved and whether it was supplied to others. Sentences also range widely, from one year to life in prison. In these cases, the applicants received suspended prison sentences close to the minimum and a long time had passed since the offenses, the court noted.

For arson under Section 404, the law provides for a fine or up to five years in prison, meaning the legislature has not classified it as a serious crime. The provision punishes conduct that endangers a person's life or health, even if no actual harm results. It also does not distinguish an isolated act of arson from a pattern of behavior, including pyromania. In this case, the applicant committed the offense in 2006 at age 18 and has not since been convicted of a similar crime.

The Supreme Court said that publishing information about expunged convictions effectively amounts to an additional lifelong social punishment. "It makes it difficult for a person who has served their sentence to reintegrate into society, limiting their opportunities in their private life, work and education. Stigmatizing information may also affect the convicted person's loved ones, including minor children," the court said in a statement.

The Supreme Court therefore declared the Criminal Records Database Act unconstitutional and invalid insofar as it requires information about a person convicted of a drug offense under Section 184(1) or (2) of the Penal Code or arson under Section 404 to remain public in a court ruling after the conviction has been expunged from the criminal records database.

Several ways the Riigikogu can amend the law

The Supreme Court's ruling took effect immediately for the five applicants and for others convicted of the same offenses whose requests to remove their information are currently before the courts. For everyone else with expunged convictions for those offenses, the court delayed the ruling's entry into force by six months to give the Riigikogu time to amend the law.

The Supreme Court explained that publishing information about expunged convictions may still be justified in some drug and arson cases and that lawmakers have several ways to address the issue. For example, they could allow courts to assess whether publication is necessary in each case when a convicted person requests the removal of their information. They could also link publication more broadly to the length of the sentence, whether it was served in prison or other factors indicating the seriousness of the crime or the danger posed by the offender.

The Supreme Court said lawmakers should also avoid creating unnecessary additional work for the courts. Any solution must comply with European Union law.

--

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