CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 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 } Published on 24 March 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 10784/24 Adrianus Cornelis KRUIJSSEN against the Netherlands lodged on 8 April 2024 communicated on 5 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant in which statements obtained in the course of a covert investigation procedure, known as the “Mr. Big method”, were used in evidence. The applicant was asked numerous questions by one of the undercover agents and in response said that he had killed the victim and had disposed of the body. The applicant was prosecuted on charges of murder/manslaughter and of hiding the body of the deceased to conceal the killing. On 2 March 2021 the Amsterdam Regional Court acquitted the applicant of these charges, considering that the incriminating statements the accused had made to the undercover agent had to be excluded from evidence because it was unable to sufficiently assess on the basis of the information in the case-file whether the accused had been restricted in his freedom to testify ( verklaringsvrijheid ) by deception and/or his dependence on the undercover agents. On 20 July 2022 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal reversed that judgment, convicted the applicant of manslaughter and of hiding the body of the deceased and sentenced him to 16 years’ imprisonment. It found that the official records drawn up during the undercover investigation and the witness statements of the undercover agents provided sufficient insight into the conduct of the investigation to assess its lawfulness and that most of the incriminating statements could be used in evidence. It further referred to Supreme Court rulings in which Article 126j of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to provide a sufficient legal basis for the covert investigation procedure. On 12   December 2023 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The applicant complains that the improper compulsion and deception used by the authorities to elicit incriminating statements, the lack of safeguards and the use of these statements in evidence amount to a violation of Article   6 of the Convention. Relying on Article 8, he further complains that the interference with his private life during the covert investigation procedure was not lawful because Article 126j of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not sufficiently clear, it was not foreseeable when it could be used and the law did not contain sufficient safeguards against abuse. 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 (see, mutatis mutandis, Allan v. the United Kingdom , no.   48539/99, §§ 42-44, 50, ECHR 2002 IX; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no.4378/02, §§ 88-93, 10   March 2009; Ibrahim and Others v.   the   United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, §§ 266-274, 13   September 2016; and De Legé v.   the   Netherlands , no. 58342/15, §§ 60-61 and 63-68, with case-law references therein, 4   October 2022)? In particular, did the admission of the evidence obtained through the covert investigation procedure comply with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1? Was the use at trial of evidence obtained through this procedure compatible with the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was Article   126j of the Code of Criminal Procedure foreseeable in its application?