Communicated on 2 October 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 50236/16 Alen BLAGAJAC against Croatia lodged on 22 August 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant, who is an attorney-at-law, on charges of giving bribe in a large-scale bribery case involving a number of land registry officials. In the course of the investigation, the applicant and several other persons were subject to secret surveillance, and thereby obtained material was used as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him.

The applicant complains (a) about his inability to consult the case file on secret surveillance imposed on him, including relevant court orders and materials so obtained: (b) about the fact that the materials obtained through secret surveillance were used as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him; (c) about the fact that a reasoned submission of the State Attorney ’ s Office in the course of the appeal proceedings was not forwarded to the defence; and (d) about the unlawfulness of the search of his laptop and mobile phones and about the use of evidence so obtained in proceedings against him.

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? In particular,

(a) Were the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms respected with regard to the non-communication to the defence of the submission of the relevant State Attorney ’ s Office (see Zahirović v . Croatia , no. 58590/11, §§ 44-50, 25 April 2013; Lonić v. Croatia , no. 8067/12, §§83-86, 4 December 2014)?

(b) Were the principles of adversarial proceedings and the equality of arms respected with regard to the non-disclosure of the case file on the secret surveillance measures to the defence (cf. Matanović v. Croatia , no. 2742/12, §§ 149-188, 4 April 2017)? In this connection, did the applicant have adequate procedural safeguards as regards the use of the results of secret surveillance measures as evidence during the proceedings? Was he afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home and/or private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention as regards the search of his computer and mobile phones? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Was the use of evidence so obtained in breach of his right to a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?