Monitoring of Internet Communications in Criminal Proceedings


  • Tamar Gegeshidze


Monitoring of Internet Communications, Right to Privacy, Secret Surveillance Measures, Obtaining Communications in Real Time, Secret Investigative Actions.


The present paper reviews the Georgian Legislation and international standards related to secret investigative actions of obtaining internet communications. Due to rapid development of modern technologies, protection of privacy in the field of electronic surveillance has become the significant challenge. Since the Constitutional Court of Georgia, under the judgement of April 14, 2016 recognized as unconstitutional certain provisions regulating secret investigative actions of obtaining communications in real time, this issue has acquired a special importance in Georgia. Taking into consideration the above mentioned, the aim of the present paper is to discuss the legal standards established by the Constitutional Court of Georgia and amendments into the legislation, to analyze certain problematic issues with regard to monitoring of internet communications and to demonstrate the best international practice developed in this field.


Constitution of Georgia, Departments of the Parliament of Georgia, 31-33, 24/08/1995.

Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, LHG, 31, 09/10/2009.

Law of “LEPL Operative-technical Agency of Georgia”, 22/03/2017.

Strafprozeßordnung (StPO) Deutschlands, 07/04/1987.

CCPR General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (The Right to Respect of Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence, and Protection of Honour and Reputation), UN Human Rights Committee, 08/04/-1988.

CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement), UN Human Rights Committee, 02/11/1999.

Comment to the Constitution of Georgia, Chapter Two, Citizenship of Georgia, Human Rights and Freedoms, Tbilisi, 2013, 181 (in Georgian).

Corn G. S., Brenner-Beck D., “Going Dark”: Encryption, Privacy, Liberty, and Security in the “Golden Age of Surveillance”, The Cambridge Handbook of Surveillance Law, Gray D., Henderson S. E. (ed.), New York, 2017, 334-335.

Clough J., Principles of Cybercrime, New York, 2010, 135, 136, 153-154.

Haase A., Peters E., Ubiquitous Computing and Increasing Engagement of Private Companies in Governmental Surveillance, International Data Privacy Law, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2017, 126, 130-131.

Kerr O. S., The Next Generation Communications Privacy Act, University of Pennsylvania Law Re-view, Vol. 162, No. 2, 2014, 384.

Loideain N., EU Law and Mass Internet Metadata Surveillance in the Post-Snowden Era, Media and Communication, Vol. 3, No 2, 2015, 54.

Milaj J., Privacy, Surveillance, and the Proportionality Principle: The Need for a Method of As-sessing Privacy Implications of Technologies Used for Surveillance, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2016, 115.

Response (№ PDP 7 19 00000216) from the Person Responsible for the Public Information of the Personal Data Protection Inspector's Office, January 21th, 2019 (in Georgian).

Sagers G., The Role of Security in Wireless Privacy, in the book: Privacy in the Digital Age, 21st-Century Challenges to the Fourth Amendment, Lind N. S., Rankin E. (ed.), Vol. 2, California, 2015, 508.

Swire P., From Real-time Intercepts to Stored Records: Why Encryption Drives the Government to Seek access to the Cloud, International Data Privacy Law, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2012, 202-203.

Vaciago G., Ramalho D. S., Online Searches and Online Surveillance: The Use of Trojans and other Types of Malware as Means of Obtaining Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, Vol. 13, 2016, 88-89, 92, 94-95,

Winter L. B., Remote Computer Searches under Spanish Law: The Proportionality Principle and the Protection of Privacy, Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, Vol. 129, No. 1, 2017, 211-212.

Wright J., Necessary and Inherent Limits to Internet Surveillance, Internet Policy Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2013, 1.

Access Now, A Human Rights Response to Government Hacking, 2016, 11,

Encryption and Anonymity Follow-up Report, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, 2018, 7, 18,

Gutheil M., Liger Q., Heetman A., Eager J. (Optimity Advisors), Legal Frameworks for Hacking by Law Enforcement: Identification, Evaluation and Comparison of Practices (Study for the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs), Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, 2017, 12, 42-43, 51-54, 58-61, 67, 79-80, 85, 89,

International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance,

Privacy International, Government Hacking and Surveillance: 10 Necessary Safeguards, Privacy Inter-national, 2018, 8, 18, 25,

Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The right to Privacy in the Digital Age, 30.06.2014, 9,

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, 23.09.2014, 14-15,

Report of the Special Rapporteur “On the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opin-ion and Expression”, 17.04.2013, 4, 10, 11, 18,

Recording Notice №3/4/885-1231 of December 29th, 2017 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, 58, 59, 65-66.

Dissenting Opinion of the Members of the Constitutional Court of Georgia – Irine Imerlishvili, Giorgi Kverenchkhiladze, Maia Kopaleishvili to the Recording Notice of Recording Notice №3/4/885-1231 of December 29th, 2017 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, 131.

Judgment №1/1/625, 640 of April 14th, 2016 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, 28, 38, 54, 55-56, 57-58.

Joined Cases C 203/15 and C 698/15, Tele2 Sverige AB and Watson, [2016], Court of Justice, 98-100.

Szabo and Vissy v. Hungary, [2016] ECtHR, 73.

Roman Zakharov v. Russia, [2015] ECtHR, 227, 229, 230, 232.

Case NC 293/12 and C 594/12, Digital Rights Ireland ltd and Seitlinger and others, [2014], Court of Justice, 34.

Kennedy v. United Kingdom, [2010] ECtHR, 130,153.

BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 27th February 2008 - 1 BvR 370/07.

Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev, [2007], ECtHR, 75.

Weber and Saravia v. Germany, [2006], ECtHR, ECHR 2006 XI, 106.

Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, [1998], ECtHR, Reports 1998 V, 46.

Huvig v. France, [1990], ECtHR, (Ser. A.), 32.

Kruslin v. France, [1990], ECtHR, (Ser. A.), 33.

Leander v. Sweden, [1987] ECtHR, (Ser. A.), 51.

Malone v. United Kingdom, [1984], ECtHR (Ser. A.), 67.

Klass and others v. Germany, [1978] ECtHR, 1978, (Ser. A.), 49-50,



How to Cite

Gegeshidze, T. (2019). Monitoring of Internet Communications in Criminal Proceedings. Journal of Law, (1). Retrieved from