CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 avril 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   Published on 22 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 25369/22 Bojan VODOPIVC against Slovenia lodged on 16 May 2022 communicated on 2 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the retention of the applicant’s telecommunications data (traffic and location data) by the telecommunications providers, the access to this data by law-enforcement authorities, and their use in the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In the course of the criminal proceedings, the applicant repeatedly applied for the exclusion of evidence relating to the telecommunications data in question, arguing that their retention by the providers and use by the authorities was unlawful and in breach of the constitutional right to protection of personal data, as well as Article 8 of the Convention. The court of first instance rejected his applications, and the court of second instance dismissed his appeals. He raised these complaints before the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, the latter of which refused to accept his constitutional complaint for consideration on 17 January 2022 (served on the applicant’s lawyer on 24 January 2022). The applicant, citing Škoberne v. Slovenia (no. 19920/20, 15 February 2024) complains that the legal basis for the retention of telecommunication data for the purposes of criminal proceedings was ab initio incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court’s annulment in 2014 of the legal provisions of the Electronic Communications Act adopted in 2012 providing for the telecommunication providers’ duty to retain telecommunication data. Furthermore, to the extent that the data were obtained by law-enforcement authorities from what allegedly constituted “commercial databases”, their use was contrary to the purpose for which they were retained. Additionally, the applicant complains that the Criminal Procedure Act did not limit the possibility to acquire telecommunication data by law-enforcement authorities to certain serious criminal offenses, which allegedly resulted in a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to privacy enshrined in Article 8.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     What was the legal basis for the retention of the applicant’s telecommunications data by the telecommunications providers during the relevant periods? Did the retention of the data in question and their subsequent use in criminal proceedings comply with Article 8 of the Convention, in particular in view of the requirements set out in Škoberne v. Slovenia , no. 19920/20, §§ 125-47,15 February 2024? 2.     Has a fair balance been struck between competing interests as required by Article 8 of the Convention with respect to the retention and use of this data (see Škoberne v. Slovenia , cited above, § 136)? In replying to this question, the parties are requested to include replies to the following: (a)   Regarding the applicant’s telecommunications data allegedly retained in “commercial databases”, that is under the legal framework governing data retention for commercial purposes, was the type, scope, and volume of this data identical to that retained under the legal basis subsequently annulled by the Constitutional Court? (b)   How was the retention and use of telecommunication data for commercial purposes regulated at the relevant time? (c)   What type of data could have been retained for commercial purposes? (d)   Could location data be retained for commercial purposes, and if so, to what extent? (e)   Have there been sufficient and appropriate safeguards in place with respect to retention of data for commercial purposes and the law enforcement authorities’ access to such data (see, mutatis mutandis , Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 70078/12, §§ 394-95, 11   January 2022)?