CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 June 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15071/23 Dražen FRIDERIĆ against Croatia lodged on 31 March 2023 communicated on 20 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s surveillance by a private detective hired by his employer. The applicant was employed with company T., which in 2016 hired a private detective to follow the applicant with a view to establishing whether he violated his employment-related obligations. The private detective mistakenly sent the surveillance report to another (sister) company. The applicant then filed a request for the protection of rights with the Agency for the protection of personal data (“the Agency”) complaining, inter alia , that his surveillance had been unlawful, disproportionate and overly intrusive and that his data had been shared with an unauthorised third person. His request was upheld in the part relating to the sharing of the data with an unauthorised person, whereas the remainder of his complaints were dismissed. His subsequent action for judicial review lodged with the Zagreb Administrative Court and an appeal lodged with the High Administrative Court were equally dismissed. The applicant’s constitutional complaint was dismissed on the merits on 10 November 2022 (date of service 1 December 2022). The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair, that the court decisions were arbitrary and lacked proper reasoning to an extent that they amounted to a lack of access to court. The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his surveillance was unlawful, disproportionate and overly intrusive in that it involved his wife and other aspects of his personal and family life which were irrelevant to his employment obligations. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant exhaust all available domestic remedies in the present case? In particular, was a civil claim for damages an available and effective remedy in the circumstances, offering the applicant reasonable prospects of success? The parties are invited to submit any relevant jurisprudence of the national courts in this respect.   2.     Have the State authorities effectively protected the applicant’s right to respect for his private life (cf. López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos.   1874/13 and 8567/13, §§ 110-11, 17 October 2019)? In particular, did the domestic courts strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake, namely, the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, on the one hand, and his employer’s interests, on the other hand? In this regard, have the factors deriving from the Court’s case-law (compare, among others, Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], no.   61496/08, §§ 121-22, 5   September 2017, and Florindo de Almeida Vasconcelos Gramaxo v.   Portugal , no. 26968/16, §§   109-10, 13   December 2022) to be treated as relevant by the domestic authorities in such a context duly been taken into consideration?