CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juin 2022

.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 } Published on 20 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9172/21 Zoran SIMIĆ against Serbia lodged on 25 December 2020 communicated on 1 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged insufficient reasoning provided in domestic courts’ decisions authorising surveillance measures against the applicant. On 12 March 2010 the investigative judge issued a secret surveillance order (telephone tapping) against 9 individuals suspected of committing various criminal offences connected to abuse of office (“basic order”). That order was extended several times, mostly by ordering telephone tapping against new suspects (“extended orders”). Three extended orders issued between 29 July 2010 and 29 March 2011 concerned the applicant. On 18 July 2018, following criminal proceedings in which the evidence obtained by secret surveillance orders was used, the Zrenjanin Higher Court found the applicant guilty of abuse of office, forging official documents and bribery and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. That judgment was upheld by the Novi Sad Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation. On 25 June 2020 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that there has been an unlawful interference with his right to privacy because the secret surveillance orders were issued contrary to the requirements of the relevant domestic law as they lacked relevant reasoning and did not include explanation why the investigation could not had been conducted by other less intrusive means. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and the confidentially of his correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as regards the use of secret surveillance measures? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Dragojević v. Croatia , no. 68955/11, 15 January 2015; Matanović v Croatia , no. 2742/12, 4 April 2017; and Grba v. Croatia , no. 47074/12, 23   November 2017)?