Communicated on 18 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 22251/13 Damir BAŠIĆ against Croatia lodged on 19 February 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Damir Bašić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Slavonski Brod . He is represented before the Court by Mr Ž. Žganjer , a lawyer practising in Zagreb .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In the period between 27 November 2007 and 16 May 2008 an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Zagrebu ) issued nine secret surveillance orders authorising the use of phone tapping and covert monitoring in respect of the applicant and several other persons in connection with a suspicion of drug trafficking. The secret surveillance orders were issue with a succinct statement of reasons indicating that there was a probable cause to believe that the applicant participated in the commission of the offence at issue and that the investigation could not be conducted by other means.

After the completion of the investigation, on 25 November 2008 the applicant was indicted in the Slavonski Brod County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Slavonskom Brodu ) on charges of drug trafficking.

During the proceedings the applicant challenged the lawfulness of the secret surveillance orders and the use of so obtained evidence in the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, the applicant contended that the secret surveillance orders lacked the relevant reasoning as to the assessment of the proportionality of their use, as required under the relevant domestic law.

On 1 March 2010 the Slavonski Brod County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years and six months ’ imprisonment. As to the applicant ’ s arguments concerning the alleged unlawfulness of secret surveillance orders, that court held that the orders contained an assessment concerning the probable cause to believe that the applicant participated in the commission of the offence at issue and that the investigation could not be conducted by other means . It therefore dismissed the applicant ’ s arguments and relied on the evidence obtained by the use of secret surveillance.

The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment to the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) relying on the case-law of the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) according to which the secret surveillance orders needed to be properly reasoned in order to satisfy the requirement of lawfulness under the relevant domestic law.

On 21 September 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. It stressed that the alleged lack of reasoning of secret surveillance orders could not lead to unlawfulness of evidence obtained by the use of secret surveillance.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court reiterating his arguments before the lower courts.

On 11 July 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint as ill-founded endorsing the reasoning of the Supreme Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains , under Article 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention , about his alleged unlawful sec ret surveillance and the use of so obtained evidence in the criminal 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, did he have adequate procedural safeguards as regards the use of the results of secret surveillance measures as evidence during the proceedings?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life and 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 justified in terms of Article 8 § 2?

The Government are required to submit two copies of all relevant documents in the applicant ’ s case.