The CC rejected the constitutional complaint. First, it held that in the circumstances of the specific case, the protection offered by the right to communication privacy consumes the right to protection personal data. Accordingly, it examined the allegations only from the perspective of communication privacy (Article 37 of the Constitution, Article 7 of CFREU and Article 8 of the ECHR) (para. 44). Second, it enumerated the conditions set in the case-law of the CC, CJEU (Tele2 Sverige C203/15, Ministerio Fiscal, C-207/16) and ECtHR (Figueiredo Teixeira v. Andorra, Ben Faiza v. France, Benedik v. Slovenia) for the proportionality of the interference with the right to communication privacy. One of the conditions, flowing from the jurisprudence of the CJEU is that a serious interference, i. e. an interference which allows the authorities very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the private lives of the persons whose data has been retained, can only be justified by the legitimate aim to fight serious crime. The CC found that the interference was serious (para. 52). Consequently, it had to establish, whether the criminal activity (taking bribes by a judge) was of serious nature. The CC agreed with the regular courts that the crime was serious. It based its conclusion on the following arguments (para. 53):
- Relatively severe prescribed punishment (1-8 years of imprisonment + pecuniary penalty)
- Involvement of more persons, some even not yet discovered, the crime itself is hard to discover
- the criminalization of the bribery of state officials implements Article 15 of UN Convention against Corruption (2004), which is a consequence of awareness of the states, that corruption poses serious problems and threats to the stability and security of societies, undermining the institutions and values of democracy, ethical values and justice and jeopardizing sustainable development and the rule of law
- the case concerns a judge, who, as a representative of judicial branch of power, has a duty to adjudicate upon the existence of corruption, and not take part or tolerate corruptive behaviour in his ranks.
Then, the CC verified, whether the interference in the applicant’s right to communication privacy was proportionate and thus justified. It found that it was, inter alia because the personal data, on which the district court based its conviction have been retained for a short period: only a month and a few days before the first warrant and two months before the last warrant was issued. It also found that the lower courts, especially the Supreme Court, have adequately assessed the interference in the light of the principle of proportionality. As a result, the constitutional complaint was rejected.