Raduk v. Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is1. April 2025. passed, and 6. Maja announced the verdict in the case in the same yearRaduk v. Serbia, No. 13696/23.
The verdict isdoneo The three-member committee.
The case refers to the alleged police supply of the applicant in the trap and his condemnation to receive a bribe. The Court found that, although other circumstances, special surgeries could justify, the lack of adequate procedural protective measures violated the legitimacy of the whole secret operation and led to the violation of the applicant's right. |
Circumstances Case
The applicant was a customs inspector in the relevant period.
Dana 2. September 2015. year, Mr. G.ĆE, who deals with the import of used cars, filed a criminal complaint against the applicant. In the criminal report, he stated that it was also of a used car importer, that the applicant could "solve issues" regarding various customs fees and procedures.
On the same day, the Zrenjanin Police Department in Zrenjanin has a reasonable proposal for the implementation of secret monitoring and recording measure in relation to the applicant, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 166. and 167. Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter: CPC).
Based on the proposal of the Zrenjanin Police Administration, the Senior Proposal Proposal in Zrenjanin sent a proposal to take a special evidentiary action of secret communication (Article 166 and 167. CPC) and secret monitoring (Article 171 and 172. CPC).
The previous procedure for the higher court in Zrenjanin has made an order on determining secret communication supervision and secret monitoring and recording in relation to the applicant B.Z. In that period, the police intercepted SMS messages and recorded telephone conversations between the applicant and F.B.
In the same period, the applicant met twice with Mr.}. At the first meeting, who initiated Mr.}, the Applicant first denied his dealing with the activities for which Mr. will. He heard from F.B., but eventually agreed to a payment of about 5,000 euros. This meeting was recorded by a video camera by the police, with the knowledge of the G.ĆE. At another meeting, Mr. will. was equipped with a sound recording device, and submitted the applicant to the marked banknot, which also provided the police. The applicant was subsequently arrested.
The Senior Court in Zrenjanin is 23. September 2019., by Judgment K. 57/17, the applicant guilty of the commission of a criminal offense receiving myth and sentenced toisA prison sentence for a period of one year (which will be made in the premises where he lives). The same judgment was convicted and F.B. As an accomplice. The verdict is based on various evidence, including audio recordings and intercepted SMS messages, shots of meetings between the applicant and Mr.. and testimony of witness G.ĆE.
During the criminal proceedings, the applicant presented the claim that his prosecution was the result of the action of G.ĆE. as a covert investigator and its participation in simulated work without a court approval required by CPC. The first instance court found that Mr. will. He was not a covert investigator, nor was a simulated job, as such actions were not ordered in accordance with CPC.
Court of Appeals in Novi Sad, Judgment of KŽ1. 106/20 of 26. May 2020, he reversed the first instance verdict, so that, among other things, a prison sentence, as well as a protective measure of the prohibition of calls, activities and duties of the official Customs Inspector - Auditor in the Ministry of Finance lasting three years.
The Supreme Cassation Court is by a verdictKZZ. 712/2020 From 22. September 2020. rejected as an unfounded request for the protection of the applicant's legality.
The Constitutional Court is by the decision of the UK-7106/2020 of 12. October 2023. rejected the Constitutional Complaint of the Applicant.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant filed a representation to the court 15. March 2023. years.
In the petitions, the violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6, claiming that its condemnation was incorrect, because it was based on evidence obtained through police trap and because domestic courts did not adequately consider its complaint that the victim was being incorrect.
Decision Court
The court took the position that the lack of evidence of the applicant's criminal offenses, the fact that criminal charges were filed exclusively on the indirect information obtained from F.B., initiating the first meeting with the applicant. The applicant receives a bribe, as well as the basis of the verdict against the applicant to the recordings during his two meetings with G.ĆE, in itself, determined in the given context that the applicant was exposed to police incentive.
However, the Court pointed out that so that such measures would be justified, there must be a clear and predictable legal framework for approving and implementing secret measures, as well as adequate supervision over such measures. The Court pointed out that the lack of such procedures creates the risk of arbitrary and police capture in a trap.
The Court noted that the CPC provides for the way for the authority, implementation and supervision of special investigative measures, which in this case was not implemented. The court found that special investigative measures were conducted without the necessary judge or court decision. The Court also found that domestic courts claimed that special measures were neither implemented since the powers were not, which failed to adequately respond to the allegations of police "trap".
Finally, the Court found that the lack of adequate procedural protective measures in the procedure from the very beginning has disrupted the legitimacy of the whole secret operation and exhibited the applicant from the police trap.
Consequently, the Court determined a violation of Article 6. Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
In the specific circumstances of this case, the Court assessed that the determination of the convention in itself is sufficiently in mind that the applicant has a legal right to replicate the repetition of criminal proceedings (Article 485 paragraph 1) and Article 492 CPC.).