accused communicates with their defence counsel, they are required to immediately
destroy the records with the content of the communication, and the information that
they learned in this context they are not allowed to use in any way.
(2) Surveillance during which audio, video or other records are to be obtained may be
performed only upon the written authorisation of the public prosecutor.
(3) If the surveillance is to interfere with in the inviolability of residence, the confidentiality of correspondence, or finding the contents of other documents and records kept in
private with the use of technology, then it may be performed only with the prior
authorisation of a judge. When entering a residence, no actions other than those that
lead to the planting of technical equipment can be performed.
(4) The authorisation referred to in Subsection 2 and 3 can only be issued upon written
request. The request must be justified by a suspicion of specific criminal activity and, if
known, with the information about the persons or items that are to be surveilled. The
authorisation must state the period during which the surveillance will be carried out and
this must not be longer than six months. This period may be extended by those who
authorised it on the basis of a new written request, but still not exceeding six months.
(5) If the matter cannot be delayed and it is not a case referred to in Subsection 3, the
surveillance may be initiated even without prior authorisation. However, the police
authority is obliged to additionally request the authorisation without undue delay and if
it is not received within 48 hours they are required to cease the surveillance, destroy
any records, and not to use any information found in this context.
(6) Without compliance with the conditions referred to in Subsection 2 and 3, the surveillance may be performed only if the person whose rights and freedoms are to be
interfered with by surveillance gives their express consent. If such consent is subsequently withdrawn, surveillance shall immediately terminate.
(7) If the record of the surveillance is to be used as evidence, it is required that the
transcript is attached with the particulars referred to in Section 55 and 55a.
(8) If no facts important to the criminal proceedings were found, it is necessary to destroy
the records in the prescribed manner.
(9) Operators of telecommunications activity, their employees, and other persons who
participate in the operation of telecommunications activity, as well as the post office or
the person performing the transport of the consignments are obligated to provide the
police authority performing the surveillance with the necessary assistance free of
charge and in accordance with their instructions. At the same time, they may not
claim the obligation of professional confidentiality imposed by special Acts.
(10) In a criminal matter other than that which the surveillance was performed for under the
conditions referred to in Subsection 2, the records obtained through surveillance and
the attached transcript may be used as evidence only if there is, in this case, a pending
criminal proceeding on an intentional criminal offence or if the person whose rights
and freedoms the surveillance interfered with, gives their consent.
It allows LEA to acquire knowledge about persons and items, including “records
kept in private”, in a classified manner by technical or other means.
33 Therefore, this
provision allows LEA to access and store online data in a clandestine way. The
stored data can be accessed during investigation of any crime, but only with written
authorisation of the public prosecutor.
Additionally, if the data is considered to be “kept in private”, which is essentially
any data stored in private computer systems and storage devices or cloud environ33 For more detailed explanation in Czech see Šámal (2013), pp. 2006–2007.
National Report: Czech Republic
139
destroy the records with the content of the communication, and the information that
they learned in this context they are not allowed to use in any way.
(2) Surveillance during which audio, video or other records are to be obtained may be
performed only upon the written authorisation of the public prosecutor.
(3) If the surveillance is to interfere with in the inviolability of residence, the confidentiality of correspondence, or finding the contents of other documents and records kept in
private with the use of technology, then it may be performed only with the prior
authorisation of a judge. When entering a residence, no actions other than those that
lead to the planting of technical equipment can be performed.
(4) The authorisation referred to in Subsection 2 and 3 can only be issued upon written
request. The request must be justified by a suspicion of specific criminal activity and, if
known, with the information about the persons or items that are to be surveilled. The
authorisation must state the period during which the surveillance will be carried out and
this must not be longer than six months. This period may be extended by those who
authorised it on the basis of a new written request, but still not exceeding six months.
(5) If the matter cannot be delayed and it is not a case referred to in Subsection 3, the
surveillance may be initiated even without prior authorisation. However, the police
authority is obliged to additionally request the authorisation without undue delay and if
it is not received within 48 hours they are required to cease the surveillance, destroy
any records, and not to use any information found in this context.
(6) Without compliance with the conditions referred to in Subsection 2 and 3, the surveillance may be performed only if the person whose rights and freedoms are to be
interfered with by surveillance gives their express consent. If such consent is subsequently withdrawn, surveillance shall immediately terminate.
(7) If the record of the surveillance is to be used as evidence, it is required that the
transcript is attached with the particulars referred to in Section 55 and 55a.
(8) If no facts important to the criminal proceedings were found, it is necessary to destroy
the records in the prescribed manner.
(9) Operators of telecommunications activity, their employees, and other persons who
participate in the operation of telecommunications activity, as well as the post office or
the person performing the transport of the consignments are obligated to provide the
police authority performing the surveillance with the necessary assistance free of
charge and in accordance with their instructions. At the same time, they may not
claim the obligation of professional confidentiality imposed by special Acts.
(10) In a criminal matter other than that which the surveillance was performed for under the
conditions referred to in Subsection 2, the records obtained through surveillance and
the attached transcript may be used as evidence only if there is, in this case, a pending
criminal proceeding on an intentional criminal offence or if the person whose rights
and freedoms the surveillance interfered with, gives their consent.
It allows LEA to acquire knowledge about persons and items, including “records
kept in private”, in a classified manner by technical or other means.
33 Therefore, this
provision allows LEA to access and store online data in a clandestine way. The
stored data can be accessed during investigation of any crime, but only with written
authorisation of the public prosecutor.
Additionally, if the data is considered to be “kept in private”, which is essentially
any data stored in private computer systems and storage devices or cloud environ33 For more detailed explanation in Czech see Šámal (2013), pp. 2006–2007.
National Report: Czech Republic
139