Published on 5 June 2023

FIRST SECTION

Applications nos. 13284/22 and 12127/23 Jaroslav HAŠČÁK against Slovakia lodged on 4 March 2022 and 15 March 2023 respectively communicated on 15 May 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern an alleged leak of information to the press concerning the applicant’s arrest and the search of his offices on 1 December 2020, in the context of criminal proceedings against him on the suspicion that with two others, they had set up and operated a corporate cover-up scheme to compensate a former secret-service agent for having provided the applicant with classified material produced by an intelligence operation commonly known under the code name “Gorilla” (for more details, see Haš čák v. Slovakia , nos. 58359/12 and 2 others, § 55-61, 23 June 2022).

On that day, business premises associated with the applicant were stormed and searched by a large number of police officers in heavy armour and, following his arrest, the applicant was brought there, all in the spotlight of the media. The applicant alleges that this exposure was tainted by an arbitrary leak of information about his arrest and the search operation towards the media and that the Constitutional Court denied him protection of his rights in that respect (inadmissibility decisions of 7 September 2021, case no. IV. ÚS425/21, and 9 November 2022, case no. II. ÚS 499/22).

The charges were eventually annulled by the Prosecutor General as lacking any support in evidence.

The case raises questions under Articles 8, 13 and 18 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the applicant’s allegation that classified information concerning his arrest and the search of his offices was available to the media, which (if proven) appears to be a fact of an objective nature independent of any individual criminal liability investigated into upon the applicant’s criminal complaint (see M.D . and Others v. Spain , no. 36584/17, § 65, 28 June 2022),

- has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Alexey Petrov v. Bulgaria , no. 30336/10, § 81, 31 March 2016)?

- has there been any positive obligation engaged on the part of the respondent State (see M.D. and Others (cited above), § 65)?

If there was such an interference, was it in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

If there was such a positive obligation, has it been complied with (see, mutatis mutandis, Căş uneanu v. Romania , no. 22018/10, §§ 80-97), 16 April 2013?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. If there was a leak of information for which the respondent State was responsible, were the restrictions it allegedly imposed on the applicant’s right to respect of private life under Article 8 of the Convention applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see summary of the applicable principles in Mer abishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 287-317, 28 November 2017)?