CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM Thus, clients of the opposite sex wishing to live in the same room may submit a relevant written request to the service provider and the latter, taking into account the clients’ will, should grant that request if possibility for this exists. If the service provider cannot grant the wish due to a lack of spare rooms, the clients who wish to live in the same room may submit a written request to the Social Insurance Board for changing the service provider under § 1128(1) of the Social Welfare Act. It should also be emphasised that both the service provider and the Social Insurance Board have the duty to provide comprehensive counselling to the clients with regard to the above issues. 11. The use of the client’s personal mobile phone and computer in a social welfare institution During the training, several questions concerning the legality of restricting the use of a client’s personal mobile phone and a computer by a social welfare institution were raised. Specifically, workers of the institutions asked whether the institution may restrict the time of the use of a mobile phone by a client in order to avoid the client unnecessarily disturbing their friends and relatives or other persons or institutions by calling. For example, there had been a case where a credit institution contacted a care home with a request that a client’s use of the mobile phone should be restricted to avoid them excessively disturbing the bank staff by calling. First, it should be noted that under § 32(1) of the Constitution the property of every person is inviolable and equally protected. Under paragraph 2 of the same section, everyone has the right to freely possess, use, and dispose of his or her property, while restrictions may only be provided by law. This means that, as a rule, the restrictions may not be established by a legal act lower than a law, such as a regulation of the local government or the Government of the Republic,20 let alone by internal documents, such as internal rules of a social welfare institution. Also, under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. This right may only be restricted in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law. A legal basis for restricting the right of ownership in social welfare institutions is § 20(1) of the Social Welfare Act, under which a person receiving social services in a social welfare institution may not possess the following substances and objects: 1) weapons within the meaning of the Weapons Act; 2) explosives, pyrotechnic substances and pyrotechnic articles within the meaning of the Explosive Substances Act; 3) substances used for causing narcotic, toxic or alcohol intoxication, and; 4) other substances or objects which may constitute a danger to the person receiving the service and the life and health of other people. Normally, a mobile phone and a computer do not constitute a danger to the life and health of the client and other persons. Thus, as a rule, a care home may not impose restrictions on the use of these items even in isolated cases, let alone establishing general restrictions on their use in internal documents of the institution. The same applies to all the other items not mentioned in § 20(1) of the Social Welfare Act. On this basis, it may be concluded that each service recipient, regardless of whether they are receiving the service voluntarily or on the basis of a court ruling, has the right to freely possess, use, and dispose of their mobile phone or computer (including for calling) and a social welfare institution may not restrict it against the person’s free will. As concerns clients placed in a social welfare institution by a court ruling, it should be noted that it is extremely important to be aware that restriction of one fundamental right cannot automatically lead to the restriction of another fundamental right. If the court has decided to deprive a person of liberty and place them in a closed institution, this does not mean that the person is automatically deprived of all the other 20 20 P. Roosma. Kommentaarid §-le 32. – Kirjastus Juura. Eesti Vabariigi Põhiseadus, Kommenteeritud väljaanne. [Comments on § 32. Constitution of the Republic of Estonia. Commented Edition] Tallinn 2008, § 32 comment 5.2.