5.  B.L.H., a holding company, Kver and I.O.R. (together with two further companies) had their business address at Hopsnesveien 127, Bergen (Western Norway), at premises owned by Kver. The companies used a common server and e-mail server (hereinafter referred to as “the server”) for their respective information technology systems. The server was owned by Kver. It contained the applicant companies’ electronic archives and private information (including private e-mail correspondence) of employees and other persons working for the companies, which did not have their own administration. They received administrative support from a small number of persons working in Bergen Underwater Services AS operating at the same address. 6.  B.L.H.’s data were stored on the server in the user areas dedicated to three persons: Mr S., who was B.L.H.’s Managing Director, and two other persons. They were employed by Bergen Underwater Service AS – a subsidiary company of B.L.H. – which carried out management services for several companies, including B.L.H. The data in question were accessed by entering those persons’ user areas, through their respective user names and passwords. 7.  In January 2003 the Bergen tax office (ligningskontor) warned B.L.H. that the company’s accounts for the tax year 2001 would be audited. On 9 March 2004 a meeting was held between representatives of B.L.H., on the one hand, and the Bergen tax office and Hordaland County tax office (fylkesskattekontor), on the other. The meeting took place at B.L.H.’s offices in Bergen. During the meeting the tax authorities presented B.L.H. with a list of questions and demanded that B.L.H. allow the auditors to make a copy of all the data on the server, which contained, inter alia, information on B.L.H.’s accounts. 8.  The representatives of B.L.H. complied with the request to grant access to the server, including offering the tax authorities the necessary passwords. They refused, however, to comply with the tax authorities’ further demand to supply a mirror copy of the (entire) server. 9.  The Managing Director, Mr S., argued, inter alia, that B.L.H. did not own the server but only rented server capacity and that also other companies made use of the server. The Managing Director of Kver, the company owning the server, was called but he too refused to allow the tax authorities to take a mirror copy of the server. 10.  Information and documents stored on the server were in part linked to other companies (with the necessary access control), in part to employees working for the different companies. Access to the home directorates and e-mails (including the map "private files and pictures") belonging to the different employees were protected by passwords. 11.  Thus the server contained information belonging to the applicant companies and also information belonging to other companies and persons. 12.  Following the refusal by B.L.H. and Kver to supply a mirror copy of the server, alternatives to a complete copy of the server were discussed. The discussion related first and foremost to whether the tax authorities would have to limit themselves to demanding copies of the part of the server administered by B.L.H. or persons working for B.L.H. The Managing Director of B.L.H., Mr S., explained to the tax authorities how they could obtain (all and only) the documents belonging to B.L.H. 13.  When Kver, as a co-user and the owner of the server, opposed the tax authorities’ demand to seize the entire server, the tax authorities responded by issuing a notice that Kver would also be subject to a tax audit. They further ordered Kver to “hand over all electronically stored information”. 14.  After further discussions, the parties compromised and agreed that the previous months’ backup tape would be handed over to the tax authorities and sealed pending a decision on their complaint. The backup tape contained 112,316 files in 5,560 folders, totalling 41 gigabytes. In the applicant companies’ submission, which the Government did not dispute, only a minor part of that information was relevant for the tax audit of B.L.H. 15.  Both Kver and B.L.H. immediately lodged a complaint with the Directorate of Taxation, a central tax authority under the Ministry of Finance, and requested the speedy return of the backup tape. 16.  On 25 March 2004 Kver informed the Bergen tax office that three other companies, including I.O.R. (the third applicant company), also used the server and had therefore been affected by the seizure of 9 March 2004. On 26 March 2004 the tax office notified those companies that they would also be audited. 17.  On 1 April 2004 I.O.R. lodged a complaint with the Directorate of Taxation. 18.  The Directorate gave a decision on each of the applicant companies’ complaints on 1 June 2004. 19.  As regards Kver and I.O.R., the Directorate withdrew the tax office’s notice that an audit would be carried out and its demand that those companies hand over data. The Directorate observed that the tax audit concerned B.L.H. and that section 4-10 of the Tax Assessment Act (ligningsloven) did not authorise the measures at issue where the purpose of the audit was to collect information about third parties. 20.  The Directorate confirmed the tax office’s demand that B.L.H. hand over or give access to the server. Its decision further stated that a representative of this company would have the opportunity to be present during the review of the server by the tax office. The tax office’s access to each area of the server was to be limited to those areas that were (also) used by B.L.H. 21.  In reaching the above conclusion, the Directorate noted that the Ministry of Finance had observed, in its letter to the Directorate of 20 May 1997, that the term “document” in sections 4-8 and 4-10 of the Tax Assessment Act was not limited to information appearing on paper, plastic cards and so on, but also covered texts and figures stored electronically on a computer. Furthermore, the duty to hand over documents also applied to electronically stored documents. The tax authorities could choose whether to ask for paper printouts, electronically readable media, or for the documents to be forwarded to their own computers. 22.  In the Directorate’s view, the question at issue concerned the delimitation of the tax authorities’ access to the “company’s archives” under section 4-10 (1) (b) of the Act (see paragraph 68 below). In instances where the documents were stored on a server, the server was to be considered as an archive for the purposes of that provision. In the present instance, the tax office had “seized” (“tatt beslag i”) the server and the question was to what extent the tax office could inspect it. Whether an obligation could be imposed under section 4-10 to hand over each document in the archive required consideration in the specific circumstances. 23.  The Directorate moreover noted that a tax subject was not under a duty to produce documents which exclusively concerned the rights and business relationships of other tax subjects. A further limitation was that the documents in question should be relevant to the tax subject’s tax assessment. Accordingly, documents of exclusively private character fell outside that definition. That distinction was important in ascertaining the extent to which the tax authorities could themselves go through the server (the archive) or whether it was for the tax subject to decide which areas of the server should be handed over. 24.  Section 4-10 (1) (b) had been added to give the tax authorities an opportunity to act with assertiveness (“gå offensivt til verks”) when inspecting archives in order to find documents of importance to the activity concerned. It was thus clear that the authority to audit did not just amount to the passive reception of information handed out by the person subjected to the audit. 25.  Moreover, the Directorate noted, section 4-10 of the Act applied to the tax audit of a specific tax subject. The handing over of documents relating to other tax subjects ought to be based on Chapter 6 of the Act. In instances where the archives were physically separated (into different parts of the server), section 4-10 did not authorise the imposition of access to the archives of other companies. In the present instance, Chapter 6 did not apply. 26.  To the extent that a joint archive was not physically divided but was mixed, the tax subject could not refuse the tax authorities access to the archive. In discussions on the draft legislation, it had been emphasised that the purpose of an audit should not be undermined by the tax subject withholding documents. In the Directorate’s view, this ought also to apply in relation to access to the tax subject’s archives. The tax subject could thus not refuse the tax authorities access to its archives on the ground that they contained documents concerning other tax subjects. The duty to hand over all documents contained in the archives should, however, be limited to documents of importance to the tax subject’s tax assessment, see section 4‑10 (1) and (2). 27.  In practice, in order to solve the problem of the tax subject avoiding the inspection of documents in the archives (the server) that were insignificant for its tax assessment, the tax subject would be allowed to be present during the review of the archive (see section 4-10 (3)). Accordingly, the Directorate stated, a representative of B.L.H. was to be present during the tax authorities’ review. 28.  Under section 11-1 of the Tax Assessment Act, the applicant companies instituted proceedings before the Oslo City Court, asking it to quash the Directorate of Taxation’s decision of 1 June 2004 in respect of B.L.H. and to order the return of the backup tape to Kver. On 10 June 2005 the City Court found in favour of the State and rejected the applicant companies’ appeal. 29.  In its judgment, the City Court found that the measure imposed by the tax authorities could comprise the copying of data for subsequent inspection at the tax office to the same extent as on-site access to data on the server could be imposed. It also found that the server in the present instance should be considered in the same way as mixed paper archives. 30.  The applicant companies appealed to the Borgarting High Court, which by a judgment of 30 April 2007 upheld the City Court’s decision on essentially the same grounds. The High Court noted inter alia that the case concerned an inspection by the tax authorities of a taxpayer in connection with a notified tax audit, an area in which the principle of legality (legalitetsprinsippet) applied, as did other legal safeguards, including the prohibition of self-incrimination derived from Article 8 of the Convention. 31.  On 2 June 2007 the applicant companies appealed to the Supreme Court, disputing in the main the High Court’s application of the law. It had failed to appreciate that the relevant provisions of section 4-10 (1) laid down clear limits for the manner of conduct of a tax inspection, which could be carried out only of the archives of the tax-subject in question, and a demand to hand over documents should be limited to pertinent material contained therein. These limits had been transgressed in the present case. 32.  The threshold for accepting access beyond the relevant company’s own archives ought to be high, not least because, by reviewing the server, the right to inspect B.L.H. had been extended to other tax subjects that were not being audited, and to any private and confidential information stored on the server. They referred to Article 8 of the Convention, according to which interference with “home” and “correspondence” was not permitted unless it was “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. They submitted that, according to the European Court’s judgment in Société Colas Est and Others v. France (no. 37971/97, ECHR 2002‑III), Article 8 also protected companies. 33.  By empowering the authorities to demand copies of the server this would also give them full access to personal data belonging to employees working for different companies as well as any private correspondence that they might have stored on the server or received on their respective e-mail addresses. This aspect of the case also appeared to breach Article 8 of the Convention, as well as laws and regulations on the processing of personal data. 34.   Since the imposition of an inspection of the archives of entities others than B.L.H. lacked a basis in section 4-10 (1) (b) of the Tax Assessment Act and Article 8 of the Convention, the tax authorities had acted contrary to the national legal provisions relied on. 35.  The application of the mixed-archive doctrine to their case had no legal basis, nor did it follow from clear and established practice. The tax authorities had not documented that there was a mixed archive in the instant case or made any attempt to carry out a prior on-site review in order to determine whether it would be possible to separate B.L.H.’s archives from those of the other companies. It ought to be a condition for a company accepting the seizure of its archives that adequate attempts be made to restrict the seizure to those areas that concerned the activity at issue. Where a partial inspection on the spot revealed that one or more documents had no corroborative significance, the tax authorities could not, according to the Supreme Court’s case-law, seize the archives for further investigation. The same would also follow from Article 8 of the Convention. 36.  There had been no legal basis for the authorities to take a full backup copy of the server. The Tax Assessment Act had come into force at a time when archives had been paper based. In the absence of the tax subject’s consent and any prior review, the tax authorities were not entitled to take away an entire paper archive in order to go through all the material at the tax office. The same ought to apply in relation to electronically stored documents, the only difference being that they had to be printed out rather than being photocopied. In this manner the intents and purposes of the Act would be fully taken into account. The copying of the server in order to subsequently review the entire archives constituted an interference that could not be justified as proportionate and necessary for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention. 37.  In additional written pleadings to the Supreme Court dated 6 July 2007, the applicant companies stated, inter alia:
“In this context, it is noted that the references to Article 8 of the Convention in the notice of appeal do not constitute a new submission. As the Attorney General also indicates, reference to the Convention was made during the oral proceedings in the lower courts. In the High Court the respondent made reference to a decision of the Icelandic Supreme Court which considered the relationship between Article 8 of the Convention and the country’s competition law. The decision is enclosed in the joint case documents before the High Court, on page 109 et seq.” 38.  In its judgment of 20 November 2007 (Norsk Retstidende 2007 p. 1612) the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment by four votes to one and held that no award should be made for costs. 39.  Mrs Justice Stabel, whose opinion was endorsed in the main by the other members of the majority, observed that the case raised three questions, all related to section 4-10 (1) (b) of the Tax Assessment Act concerning the inspection of records located on a computer server: First, whether the tax authorities could demand access to all the records, regardless of content; secondly, whether this also applied in cases where the records included material belonging to other taxpayers; and, thirdly, whether the tax authorities could demand access in order to copy material for subsequent inspection at the tax office. 40.   Section 4-10 (1) (a) of the Tax Assessment Act empowered the tax authorities to order a tax subject to hand over specific documents of significance for a tax assessment. Sub-paragraph (b) provided, in addition to the on-site visit and review of the taxpayer’s assets, a legal basis for the imposition of a review of the company’s archives. With the exception of the rule on review of archives (“arkivgjennomsyn”) in sub-paragraph (b), those provisions were essentially a continuation of the earlier ones of the Taxation Act on the duty to provide information and allow special inspections. Since the rule on review of archives had been added during the consideration of the Bill by the Parliamentary Committee on Financial Matters’, the preparatory work had been rather sparse. On the other hand, the Committee had pointed out that an order to produce a document pursuant to sub‑paragraph (a) presupposed knowledge about the existence of the document, and that the refusal to allow access to review archives constituted a hindrance to effective inspection. 41.  From the context, it transpired that the purpose of the provision in section 4-10 (1) (b) was to provide a basis for the tax authorities to assess whether a tax subject possessed documents which he or she could be ordered to produce under sub-paragraph (a). The duty to produce documents was not limited to accountancy documents. What was decisive was whether the documents were significant for the taxpayer’s tax assessment and the authorities’ review of the latter. It was clear that also electronic documents were covered by sub-paragraph (a). 42.   Sub-paragraph (b) should naturally be interpreted in the light of its purpose. The aim of an inspection was to find out whether an archive contained documents that could be significant for tax assessment purposes. Access should therefore comprise all archives which the tax authorities had reason to assume contained information of significance for the tax assessment, not just those archives or parts of archives that included accountancy material. In the interests of efficiency of the tax audit, access at that stage should be relatively wide. Therefore, the companies’ argument that it should be up to each tax subject to give binding indications as to which parts of the archive contained documents of significance for the tax assessment or the audit had to be rejected. 43.  Access to archives could not be compared to search and seizure, as argued by the applicant companies. Measures taken under Chapter 4 of the Tax Assessment Act formed part of ordinary administrative procedures with a view to ensuring that a correct tax assessment was made. An accountancy audit could be initiated independently of any suspicion of the commission of a criminal offence. An order imposed pursuant to section 4-10 also involved compulsion of a different character than enforcement measures (“tvangsmidler”) in the context of criminal proceedings, where the prosecution executed the measure by way of enforcement (“tvangsgjennomføring”). The principle of the duty to submit tax returns, supplemented by the tax subject’s duty to provide information under section 4-2, presupposed that it should be possible to verify and depart from the information provided by the tax subject. The consequences of a tax subject’s refusal to cooperate were exclusively administrative (discretionary tax assessment). 44.  As to the applicants’ argument that the server contained archives belonging to several companies, Mrs Justice Stabel observed that where several companies shared an archive and the areas belonging to the different users were clearly separated, the authorisation to access the archives was limited to the tax subject concerned. The problem arose where it was not possible, at least in advance, to ascertain whether the respective parts were clearly separated, typically where the data were stored electronically on a common server. On this point she agreed with and cited the Directorate of Taxation’s distinction between separate and common (mixed) archives in its decision of 1 June 2004:
"When several tax subjects share an archive, one must, in the opinion of the Directorate, distinguish between cases in which the archives are clearly physically separated and cases in which there is a common (mixed) archive. Whether or not an area will be considered as clearly separate must be assessed in the specific case. The Directorate emphasises that, at present, there is insufficient information in this case to make that assessment." 45.  Mrs Justice Stabel further agreed with the High Court that, as a starting point, where full access was not given to the tax authorities, it should be possible to impose full access if the archive was organised in a manner making the tax authorities dependent on indications by the tax subject in order to identify relevant information. It would be up to the companies whether they wished to organise clearly separate archives or to maintain mixed archives which, in practice, would lead to an extension of the tax authorities’ powers. 46.  In the present case, the companies had disputed that there had been a mixed archive of the type described. They had argued that B.L.H.’s representative should be able to identify which users had been working on matters pertaining to them and which files had been relevant to their activities. However, it followed from the facts established by the High Court that B.L.H. did not have its own administration but was serviced by a small number of persons in Bergen Underwater Services AS located at the same address, as was the situation of the other companies using the server in question which was owned and run by Kver. B.L.H. did not have its own user area, but the persons who provided services to the company stored the company’s documents under their own user names and passwords. 47.  It would have been impossible for the tax authorities to identify immediately the areas of the server where the relevant information was stored. The archive was not organised with clear separations between the different companies, and the distinction between each service person’s user area was not such as to enable the tax authorities to identify information of significance for the tax assessment. In this situation, the High Court had correctly considered that the tax authorities could not depend on B.L.H. indicating the files that might be relevant for the tax assessment of the company. Therefore, the authorities ought to be vested with powers to review all the data on the server. Like the High Court, she also attached some weight to the fact that it had been fully possible to organise the cooperation regarding the use of the server differently, for example by applying consistently own user names. 48.  As to the third question, the manner in which the review of the relevant data should take place, Mrs Justice Stabel took note of the fact that the backup tape containing all the information on the server had been prepared, sealed and taken to the tax office, pending a final judgment in the case. A backup tape contained all the files stored in the archive but, unlike a mirror copy, not the computer programmes and deleted material, as the tax authorities had initially wanted. 49.  The question was whether the imposition of a duty to allow access with a view to take copies for subsequent inspection at the tax office could be deduced from the right to demand access to the company’s archives. The answer did not follow directly from section 4-10 (1) (b) of the Tax Assessment Act. Unlike sub-paragraph (a), which expressly stated different alternatives for access to documents, sub-paragraph (b) made no mention of how the review should take place. That provision was supplemented by section 4-10 (3), which authorised the tax authorities to demand the presence of a representative of the tax subject in order to provide the necessary guidance, assistance and access to the company’s premises. 50.  The question of copying was twofold: did the tax authorities have a right to require a copy and, if so, could the tape then be inspected at the tax office? 51.  Very little preparatory work had been carried out on that provision and that particular point had not been dealt with. Since archives had been almost exclusively paper based at the time when the provision had been enacted, the question of copying a whole archive had been unlikely to arise. In view of its purpose, there was no reason to interpret the provision to the effect that it hindered the imposition of a requirement to take a copy where the review of a copy was desirable. The central question was whether the measure imposed by the tax authorities could also include the taking of material to the tax office. 52.  The rationale behind sub-paragraph (b) – namely to remove obstacles to an effective audit occasioned by the requirement on the tax authorities to show that the archives contained documents that were significant for tax assessment purposes – militated strongly in favour of an interpretation adapted to the current situation. According to the Directorate of Taxation, an on-site inspection would be particularly time-consuming, and if the authorities were unable to take copies for inspection at the tax office, they would face difficulties in implementing the audit. 53.  It could be questioned whether access would entail such an additional burden for the tax subject that the above interpretation would be incompatible with the principle of legality (legalitetsprinsippet). In the view of Mrs Justice Stabel, it was difficult to see that this could be the case. Indeed, the inspection as such would be less burdensome in that the tax subject would at no time be deprived of access to the archive. The requisite safeguards were preserved as the tax subject had a right, under section 3‑5 (1) of the Tax Assessment Act, to be notified about and to be present during the authorities’ review of the tape. If the measure was the subject of a complaint, the material had to be sealed pending examination of the complaint (section 3-6 (4)). In most instances, there was reason to believe that it would also be in the tax subject’s interest that the review took place at the tax office. In any event, there was little reason to oppose that. 54.  Mrs Justice Stabel agreed, however, that the protection of privacy (“personvernhensyn”) had to be taken into consideration, because the review of the archive was not limited to accountancy documents but included other documents in the archives which the tax authorities had reason to believe might be of relevance for the tax assessment. However, the tax authorities could also access such sensitive information even if the review were carried out on the tax subject’s premises. Even though, theoretically, there would always be a danger of abuse, which might be somewhat greater if the copied material were taken to the tax office, that risk was hardly so great as to be decisive. 55.  It had not been alleged that the backup copy contained more data than what would have been accessible had the review been carried out on-site. The legal safeguards described above would be observed during the review. It was further understood that once the review had been completed, the copy would be destroyed and all traces of the contents would be deleted from the tax authorities’ computers and storage devices. In addition, the review was to provide a basis for orders pursuant to section 4-10 (1) (a). The tax authorities would not be authorised to withhold documents from among the material that had been taken away unless the tax subject accepted the measure. 56.  The dissenting member of the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Skoghøy, agreed with the view held by the majority that the tax authorities could require B.L.H. to give access in order to enable them to carry out an inspection of the server used jointly by the applicant companies. 57.  As to the further issue of whether the tax authorities could demand a copy of the server on which the archive was stored with a view to subsequent review at the tax office, Mr Justice Skoghøy observed as follows. In his view, section 4-10 (1) (b) could not reasonably be understood to mean that it authorised the tax authorities to demand a copy of the archive. The provision was limited to “review”. To demand a copy was something else and much more far-reaching. 58.  The reason why the majority in Parliament in 1980 had been in favour of conferring on the tax authorities a power to search and seize material was that they had believed that the authorities should be able to ensure that important documents had not been “hidden or destroyed (notably burned)”. If the tax authorities were allowed to demand a copy of the archive, they would in reality be empowered to seize, a power which the majority in Parliament in 1984 had not wished to give them when removing a provision to that effect before the entry into force of the relevant part of the Tax Assessment Act. 59.  He agreed with the majority that the right to review archives under section 4-10 (1) (b) comprised not only archives containing accountancy material but all archives that potentially contained documents of significance for the tax assessment. This meant that the archived material which the tax authorities could demand to review included a great quantity of sensitive personal data. If the tax authorities were to be empowered to demand the copying of archives, the risk of dissemination and abuse of sensitive personal data would increase considerably beyond what followed from a review on the taxpayer’s premises. This applied especially to the copying of electronic archives. The search facilities for an electronic archive were different from those used for a traditional paper-based archive. Even if electronically stored data were deleted, they could be reconstructed. Also, electronically stored data might be disseminated far more easily and effectively than information on paper. The right of the tax subject to be present when the tax authorities opened and reviewed the archive did not constitute a guarantee against abuse. There was no way of ensuring that that right had been respected. Therefore, weighty considerations of legal security and protection of privacy militated against conferring on the tax authorities a right to demand a copy of the archive. As the majority in Parliament had pointed out in the context of the legislative amendment in 1984, the requirements of legal security and protection of privacy were an overriding political aim in a democratic society. In particular, since the parliamentary majority had voted strongly against search and seizure, and since copying for subsequent review at the tax office was in reality a form of seizure, Mr Justice Skogøy found that the tax authorities clearly should not be empowered to require a copy without the question being first considered by the legislator and a clear statutory power given for copying. 60.  On that ground, Mr Justice Skoghøy voted for quashing the Directorate of Taxation’s decision of 1 June 2004 in respect of B.L.H. authorising the copying of the server. 61.  On 28 January 2008 the Tax Administration (skatteetaten, Skatt Vest) notified the applicant companies of their intention to open the tape with a view to ordering the production of documents. It notified them of the dates, time and place of the review, its object, certain preparatory processing not involving searching or opening of documents, and the identity of the companies concerned. It also invited them to appoint a common representative to attend the said preparations, and the opening and review of the tape. 62.  In a letter to the applicant companies dated 30 April 2008, the Tax Administration responded, inter alia, to certain complaints made by the applicant companies in their letter of 22 February 2008. 63.  In response to the applicant companies’ complaint that the backup tape had been secretly copied, the Tax Administration reiterated that they had already informed the applicant companies in a letter of 19 June 2007 that after their meeting on 5 June 2007, the contents of the tape had been copied to hard disk. This had been necessary in order to be able to open and read the files, and the data would be carefully secured pending further proceedings. Except for in the limited context of the criminal investigation described in paragraph 65 below, the files had not been opened and read. 64.   As regards the applicant companies’ demand that either the two hard disks in question be handed over to B.L.H., or the copied material be deleted, the Tax Administration replied that they could not see that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 20 November 2007 would prevent them from copying the contents of the backup tape to hard disk, or that the actual review could be carried out on this instead of the backup tape. They referred to the Supreme Court’s reasoning summarised in paragraph 49 above. The copying of the data onto an independent, free and unused hard disk was necessary in order to be able to carry out an appropriate review of the contents of the backup tape. In that connection, the tax office took note of the Supreme Court’s understanding that, once it had been reviewed, the copy would either be returned or destroyed, and all traces of the contents would be deleted from the tax authorities’ computers and storage devices. The Supreme Court’s reasoning thus appeared to be based on the presumption that the contents of the server could be copied temporarily as described. The tax office would not hand over the hard disks or delete information from the backup tape stored on them until completion of the review. 65.  In reply to a request by the applicant companies for the names of personnel who had dealt with the case, including those who had viewed documents on the backup tape, the tax office stated that the correspondence, faxes and e-mails that the tax authorities had produced in connection with the case indicated sender’s identity. Moreover, representatives of the tax office had presented themselves by name during meetings and telephone conversations that had taken place. Furthermore, in the context of a separate tax investigation of the applicant companies and other companies within the same ownership sphere that were linked to a certain Mr X and criminal proceedings against the latter, the regional tax office had filed a complaint against him to the police alleging that he had committed aggravated tax fraud. During the criminal investigations the police had obtained a judicial order authorising the seizure of the backup tape. The tax office accepted to assist the police, in accordance with relevant agreements and instructions. The assistance had consisted of the reviewing of the backup tape, during the period between January and March 2006, by certain named expert accountants and a tax lawyer. After completion of the work, the police had demanded that the Office delete all documents stored electronically and shred all paper copies taken. That had been done immediately. In the proceedings before the High Court in the present case, the parties agreed to distinguish these from the afore-mentioned criminal proceedings. 66.  The Tax Administration agreed with the applicant companies that it would be problematic with respect to the duty of confidentiality if the representative(s) of all taxpayers present were to be given the opportunity to view the computer screen during the review of documents. For that reason – and because it would have made working conditions difficult if the officer had the said representative(s) just behind his back while working on the backup tape – it had been decided that the representative(s) would not have access to the screen or to read printed documents continuously during the inspection (section 3-13 (1), first sentence, and section 3-5 (1), second sentence, of the Tax Assessment Act). The representative(s) would therefore be directed to another part of the premises where they could observe the processing but not the documents being reviewed.
As the officers identified documents that the taxpayer would be ordered to produce, the documents would be printed out and listed. After completion of the review, the printed and listed documents would be sorted for each taxpayer in the case complex. The representative of the individual taxpayer would then be given access to the document which concerned him and would, in so far as desirable, be able to comment.