practically identical when it comes to the authorisation to conduct communication
interception. Both services are authorised to i) the interception or recording of
telecommunications, radio communication or other similar operation, or surveying
data about this operation
57 ; ii) monitoring of telecommunications, radio communication or other similar operations without tapping its content, or collecting data on
the traffic.
58 Probably the most important provision is Section 9 subsection 5 of the
act No. 289/2005 on Military Intelligence
59 which reads as follows:
Military Intelligence/the Security Information Service is entitled to the extent required for
the performance of a specific operation, request a legal or natural person providing a public
communications network or publicly available electronic communications service
a) the establishment or security interface for connecting the terminal telecommunications
equipment for the interception or recording messages at specified points of their
network, and
b) the provision of operational and localization data, in the form and to the extent
determined by special legislation.
The Office for Foreign Relations and Information is not expressly authorised by
law to conduct communication interception. However, section 9 of the act
No. 153/1994 Sb. on intelligence services of the Czech Republic allows general
cooperation between the services based on an agreement between them.
Although a judicial approval is needed before an intelligence service starts with
communication interception, the threshold is much lower because it is not limited to
specific criminal offence. The Constitutional Court noted this difference in its
decision No. I. ÚS 3038/07, when it stated that information obtained from communication interception by an intelligence service could not be freely used in criminal
proceedings. The Constitutional Court formulated that there are two frameworks for
communication interception.
The first one is criminal proceedings framework. Its sole purpose is to solve the
crime and the entire process is contained within the judiciary branch of state power.
The interception to obtain the evidence is done by the Police in accordance with the
Code of Criminal Procedure and it is subject to a closer judicial review. On the other
hand, the purpose of the second one, the intelligence framework, is to ensure national
security. It is heavily rooted in the executive branch of state power and the judicial
review is much less extensive than in the case of criminal proceedings.
60
57 Section 8 subsection 1 letter b of both acts. This is considered as intelligence technology.
58 Section 8 subsection 2 letter d of both acts. This is not considered as intelligence technology.
59 The same wording has section 8a of act No. 154/1994 Sb. on the Security Information Service.
60 For more information see Interception of electronic communications in the Polčák et al. (2016),
pp. 19 and 95–101.
National Report: Czech Republic
149
interception. Both services are authorised to i) the interception or recording of
telecommunications, radio communication or other similar operation, or surveying
data about this operation
57 ; ii) monitoring of telecommunications, radio communication or other similar operations without tapping its content, or collecting data on
the traffic.
58 Probably the most important provision is Section 9 subsection 5 of the
act No. 289/2005 on Military Intelligence
59 which reads as follows:
Military Intelligence/the Security Information Service is entitled to the extent required for
the performance of a specific operation, request a legal or natural person providing a public
communications network or publicly available electronic communications service
a) the establishment or security interface for connecting the terminal telecommunications
equipment for the interception or recording messages at specified points of their
network, and
b) the provision of operational and localization data, in the form and to the extent
determined by special legislation.
The Office for Foreign Relations and Information is not expressly authorised by
law to conduct communication interception. However, section 9 of the act
No. 153/1994 Sb. on intelligence services of the Czech Republic allows general
cooperation between the services based on an agreement between them.
Although a judicial approval is needed before an intelligence service starts with
communication interception, the threshold is much lower because it is not limited to
specific criminal offence. The Constitutional Court noted this difference in its
decision No. I. ÚS 3038/07, when it stated that information obtained from communication interception by an intelligence service could not be freely used in criminal
proceedings. The Constitutional Court formulated that there are two frameworks for
communication interception.
The first one is criminal proceedings framework. Its sole purpose is to solve the
crime and the entire process is contained within the judiciary branch of state power.
The interception to obtain the evidence is done by the Police in accordance with the
Code of Criminal Procedure and it is subject to a closer judicial review. On the other
hand, the purpose of the second one, the intelligence framework, is to ensure national
security. It is heavily rooted in the executive branch of state power and the judicial
review is much less extensive than in the case of criminal proceedings.
60
57 Section 8 subsection 1 letter b of both acts. This is considered as intelligence technology.
58 Section 8 subsection 2 letter d of both acts. This is not considered as intelligence technology.
59 The same wording has section 8a of act No. 154/1994 Sb. on the Security Information Service.
60 For more information see Interception of electronic communications in the Polčák et al. (2016),
pp. 19 and 95–101.
National Report: Czech Republic
149