CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Communicated on 16 February 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 50049/12 Juraj PARAZAJDER against Croatia lodged on 12 July 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Juraj Parazajder, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Mr   O.   Tatarac, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was a lawyer practicing in Zagreb. On an unspecified date in 2007 the State Attorney’s Office asked an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) to authorise the use of secret surveillance measures in respect of J.M., the vice-president of the Croatian Privatisation Fund ( Hrvatski fond za privatizaciju ; hereinafter: the “Fund” – legal entity established by the State and tasked with carrying out the privatisation of the publicly owned property) in connection with a suspicion of corruption. During the investigation and the use of secret surveillance measures against J.M. the authorities intercepted and recorded a number of the applicant’s telephone conversations and messages. On 16 June 2007 the applicant was arrested in connection with a suspicion of corruption involving J.M. and a number of other officials of the Croatian Privatisation Fund and other individuals. On 12 February 2009 the applicant was indicted in the Zagreb County Court in charges of aiding and abetting the abuse of power and authority and bribe-taking. During the proceedings the applicant challenged lawfulness of the secret surveillance orders arguing, inter alia , that they lacked the relevant reasoning and had been issued contrary to the requirements of the relevant domestic law. On 15 May 2009 the Zagreb County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. It dismissed the applicant’s arguments about the unlawfulness of secret surveillance orders and accordingly relied on the evidence so obtained. The applicant challenged the first-instance judgment before the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) arguing that he had been unlawfully monitored and that his conviction was based on unlawfully obtained evidence by the use of secret surveillance. On 17 February 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) complaining, inter alia , about his allegedly unlawful secret surveillance and use of evidence so obtained in the criminal proceedings against him. On 21 February 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints as ill-founded. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 23 February 2012. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention, about his alleged unlawful secret surveillance and use of such evidence in the criminal proceedings against him.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have adequate procedural safeguards as regards the use of the results of secret surveillance measures as evidence during the proceedings?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as regards the use of secret surveillance measures? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 8 § 2?   The Government are required to submit two copies of all relevant documents in the applicant’s case.