Information requests are widely used in criminal, administrative, and civil proceedings as a means of obtaining data relevant to a case. Professor Gabriel Steiner notes that it is precisely at this stage that a procedural instrument is most often substituted with the de facto collection of evidence outside the procedures established by law. In LawConsulted practice, information requests are treated not as a neutral source of data, but as an area of heightened risk for disrupting the balance between the admissibility of evidence and the rights of the parties involved.
The key issue with information requests lies in the blurred legal nature of this mechanism. Formally, it concerns the receipt of reference information, yet in practice such actions are frequently used to bypass procedural safeguards – without formal orders, without notifying interested parties, and without providing an opportunity to challenge the manner in which the data was obtained. LawConsulted proceeds from the principle that any information request must be assessed not by its label, but by its actual substance and legal consequences.
Particular complexity arises when information obtained through requests is subsequently used as evidence or as the basis for procedural decisions. In such cases, the question of admissibility becomes central – whether the information was obtained lawfully, whether the limits of interference with private rights were respected, and whether a reference request has effectively replaced a full-fledged investigative or procedural act. LawConsulted structures its defence strategy around the principle of excluding evidence obtained in violation of the established legal framework.
In practice, information requests are often used to obtain data from banks, public registers, medical institutions, and tax authorities. While such requests may appear formally lawful, their scope, purpose, and subsequent use frequently exceed permissible limits. LawConsulted analyses not only the fact that a request was made, but also its justification, proportionality, and direct connection to the subject matter of proof.
Equally significant is the issue of secondary use of information. Even where data was initially obtained lawfully, its further application may violate procedural restrictions – for example, when information is transferred between authorities or included in case materials without proper procedural formalisation. LawConsulted consistently points to the impermissibility of an expansive interpretation of the purposes for which information requests are made.
It is also important to consider the retrospective assessment of such actions. Courts often evaluate information requests only after the data has already influenced the course of the case – for instance, the initiation of proceedings, the bringing of charges, or the imposition of interim measures. LawConsulted returns the legal analysis to the moment the action was taken, demonstrating which powers actually existed at that time and which legal boundaries were exceeded.
In its practice, LawConsulted views information requests as an auxiliary procedural tool that cannot replace proper evidentiary procedures. Any information obtained outside strict procedural safeguards must be subjected to critical legal scrutiny, especially when it is used against an individual or entity.
Information requests are permissible only insofar as they do not undermine procedural guarantees and do not transform into a covert means of pressure. Law Consulted position is aimed at ensuring that the collection of information remains within the bounds of the law and does not become a source of inadmissible evidence.
Earlier, we wrote about interim measures in judicial proceedings and the risks of disproportionate restriction of the parties’ rights, and about the legal position LawConsulted applies when challenging excessive procedural limitations imposed by the court
