5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Zagreb. He was formerly a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
6.  In the context of the use of secret surveillance measures in respect of a vice-president of the Croatian Privatisation Fund (Hrvatski fond za privatizaciju, hereinafter “the Fund”), a legal entity established by the State and tasked with carrying out the privatisation of publicly owned property, the authorities intercepted and recorded a number of the applicant’s telephone conversations and messages. The secret surveillance was carried out on the basis of orders issued by an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). The reasoning of the relevant orders is outlined in the case of Matanović v. Croatia (no. 2742/12, §§ 11‑13, 4 April 2017).
7.  On 16 June 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of corruption involving a number of officials of the Fund and other individuals.
8.  Following his arrest, an investigation was opened in the Zagreb County Court (see, for further details, Matanović, cited above, §§ 15-28).
9.  On 12 February 2008, upon completion of the investigation, the State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta – hereinafter: “the State Attorney’s Office”) indicted the applicant and nine other individuals in the Zagreb County Court on charges of bribe-taking, offering bribes, and abuse of power and authority. The applicant was indicted ‒ in his capacity as the lawyer acting for the Vice-President of the Fund ‒ for facilitating the receipt of a bribe of 150,000 euros (EUR) for his client and aiding and abetting the abuse of power and authority by him.
10.  During the proceedings the applicant challenged the lawfulness of the secret surveillance orders, arguing that they lacked the requisite reasoning and had been issued contrary to the provisions of the relevant domestic law (see, for further details on the procedural actions taken, Matanović, cited above, §§ 29-63).
11.  On 15 May 2009 the Zagreb County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. It examined in detail and dismissed the applicant’s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of secret surveillance orders on the grounds that they had been issued by the relevant investigating judge in accordance with the law. The trial court also provided detailed reasoning why it considered that the available evidence provided a reliable basis for the applicant’s conviction. When convicting the applicant, the trial court had relied on the secret surveillance recordings, the statement of an informant, who had been questioned at the trial, the statements of other witnesses, and the evidentiary material available in the file.
12.  On 24 and 28 September 2009, the applicant both personally and through a lawyer lodged appeals against the first-instance judgment before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). In the appeals, the applicant argued that he had been unlawfully monitored and that his conviction had been based on evidence obtained unlawfully by the use of secret surveillance. He also extensively challenged the factual findings and conclusions of the first-instance court.
13.  On 17 February 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance judgment.
14.  On 22 April 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) alleging in particular that he had been placed under unlawful secret surveillance and that the evidence thereby obtained had been used in the criminal proceedings against him. He also extensively elaborated on the alleged deficiencies in the lower courts’ factual conclusions.
15.  On 21 February 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints as unfounded, endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts. It also stressed that the applicant had actively participated in the proceedings and that there had been no arbitrariness in the findings and decisions of the relevant courts.
16.  The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 23 February 2012.