CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 novembre 2023

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Legal summary November 2023 Fico v. Slovakia (communicated case) - 21662/23   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Adversarial trial Equality of arms Use of covert audiovisual recording devices to monitor prominent politician’s private meetings in context of criminal investigation: communicated Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Use of covert audiovisual recording devices to monitor prominent politician’s private meetings in context of criminal investigation: communicated Article 13 Effective remedy Use of covert audiovisual recording devices to monitor prominent politician’s private meetings in context of criminal investigation: communicated Article 18 Restrictions for unauthorised purposes Use of covert audiovisual recording devices to monitor prominent politician’s private meetings in context of criminal investigation: communicated The applicant is the leader of the SMER - sociálna demokracia party and is currently Prime Minister of Slovakia. At the relevant time, he was a member of the opposition in Parliament. In January 2021 the national organised crime investigation agency began an investigation in respect of one or more unknown persons on suspicion of an aggravated form of poaching. In the course of the investigation, the District Court issued a warrant authorising the use of covert audiovisual recording devices on the exterior of a lodge situated in the hunting area concerned. Subsequently a further warrant was issued permitting the use of such devices also on the interior of the lodge in relation to a suspicion of laundering of the proceeds of criminal activity in conjunction with the offence of poaching. It seems that any recordings obtained from the exterior of the lodge were destroyed on the grounds that they had contained nothing of use in respect of the investigation. However, audiovisual footage from inside the lodge was published in the media, depicting a series of meetings between the applicant, his political ally, practicing lawyers and other persons, discussing political, legal and private matters. In response, a review was carried out by the Public Prosecution Service which resulted in the quashing of the initial decision to issue a warrant. It was found the charge of poaching was incongruous, not susceptible to review and lacked support in any previously obtained material. Moreover, the investigator had failed to take crucial pieces of oral evidence and the taken gave no grounds for suspicion at all. In any event, it had been an inherent error of law to consider the charge in its aggravated form, with the basic offence not permitting the use of covert recording devices under the Criminal Code. In addition, as there had in fact been no suspicion of poaching, there could not have been any suspicion of the laundering of the proceeds of it, the justification for the issuing of the second warrant. Subsequently, the investigator who had commenced the investigation was charged with abuse of official authority. Those proceedings are ongoing. Relying, inter alia , on his rights to judicial protection and protection of his privacy, the applicant complained before the Constitutional Court that the authorisation of the taking of the covert measures that had led to the monitoring of his person had been unlawful and arbitrary and had served a hidden agenda of politically discrediting him. His complaint was declared inadmissible. The applicant has never been charged or suspected in connection with the above-mentioned matters. Communicated under Articles 6 § 1, 8, 13 and   18 of the Convention.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .