Simic
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is3. December 2024. brought, and 14. January 2025. published a verdict in the caseSimic against Serbia, No. 9172/21.
The verdict isbroughtThe three-member committee.
The case refers to the supervision and recording of the applicant's telephone conversations, on the basis of orders of the investigating judge. The Court estimated that the principle of proportionality was not met, which was also applied to the applicant's rights, as the order noted by the duties was determined by the explanation that would show the need and justification of this measure in the desired case. The court found a violation of Article 8. Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention). |
Circumstances Case
Investigative judge of the High Court in Zrenjanin is 12. March 2010. brought an orderHe has determined the supervision and recording of telephone and other talks and communications to other technical means against several persons against whom investigation procedure was conducted before that court. This command has been expanded several times, supplemented, partially abolished and corrected. The applicant referred three orders. The extensions of the commands were invited to the proposal of the Public Prosecutor for the application of this measure and involved legal formulation that "otherwise cannot be collected for criminal prosecution or their collection would be significantly difficult".
During the Propertant, the Court suggested that the court issues a decision on the transcript of telephone conversations, but the senior court in Zrenjanin declined, and 18. July 2018, after the evidentiary passed the judgment The Applicant was curves and condemned him to the imprisonment.
The same request, changed only in accordance with the process differences, was emphasized under the Appeals Court (before the Appellate Court in Novi Sad, Judgment of Kž1. December 2018), but also in the Procedure for Protection of Legality (before the Supreme Cassation court, KZZ Judgment. 316/2019 from 17. April 2019 years), but both times without success.
The applicant was 13. February 2019. submitted the Constitutional Court against the first-instance and second instance judgment, amended 24. July 2019, claiming that the orders for supervision over his telephone conversations were unlawful of its right to the secrecy of correspondence and others Communication funds.
The Constitutional Court is 26. May 2020. Year brought a solution to U. 1445/2019 which constitutional complaint rejected.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant filed a petition to the court25. December 2020. years.
In the representations, he pointed out the violation of the right to respect for private life referred to in Article 8. Convention due to alleged illegality and uniform measures for measures forSupervision and recording of telephone conversations which ordered the investigating judge of the High Court in Zrenjanin.
Decision Court
The Court stated that the measures were applied - the monitoring and recording of the applicant's telephone conversations - obviously represented interference in his right to private life and privacy of correspondence.
The Court further stated that it was undoubted that the measure was prescribed by law and that weighed a legitimate goal.
However, considering the proportionality of the disputed measure, the Court assessed that the reasoning of the application on the application of the disputed measures was not in accordance with the requirements of Article 8. the Convention, as it did not contain a detailed assessment whether the use of secret surveillance was necessary and justified in the circumstances.
This reason for the reasoning primarily based on the statement that the investigation has already established the existence of "communication between the applicant and other suspects and its involvement in the criminal conspiracy" and that the "investigation cannot be carried out by other means or would be Difficult ", without essential analysis Why the investigation could not be implemented using other funds or why the investigation would be difficult to implement other funds in the specific case.
Consequently, the Court determined a violation of Article 8. Of the Convention.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court assessed that determining the violation of rights in itself is sufficiently satisfied with any intangible damage suffered by the applicant, but obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of 800.00 euros to the applicant.