SECOND SECTION
CASE OF BLAGAJAC v. CROATIA
(Application no. 50236/16)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
9 May 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Blagajac v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Pauliine Koskelo, President,
 Lorraine Schembri Orland,
 Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 50236/16) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 August 2016 by a Croatian national, Mr Alen Blagajac, born in 1969 and living in Zagreb (“the applicant”), who was represented by Ms V. Drenški Lasan, a lawyer practising in Zagreb;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the fairness of proceedings, notably equality of arms, and lawfulness of the search of his laptop and mobile phones to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to examination of the application by a Committee;
 
Having deliberated in private on 11 April 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant, who was an attorney-at-law, on charges of giving a 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 accused were subject to secret surveillance, and material obtained thereby was used as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him. 2. Between June and August 2007, at the request of the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (hereinafter “the OSCOC”), the Zagreb County Court ordered covert following and technical recording of telecommunications of a number of individuals, including the applicant, under the suspicion of offering and/or receiving a bribe and abuse of office of land registry officials. The said measures were expanded and prolonged several times, ultimately being lifted in respect of the applicant on 9 December 2007. 3. On 11 December 2007, on the basis of a court order, the police searched the applicant’s flat and temporarily seized his laptop. The search was witnessed by two persons and the applicant, who had refused legal representation, and who had no objections to the search or the contents of the search record, which he signed. 4. On the same day, the police also searched the applicant’s law office and his car, seizing various documents. An investigation judge and a representative of the Croatian Bar Association were present at those searches, the applicant made no objections and signed the search records. 5. On 11 December 2007, during the applicant’s arrest, two mobile phones were temporarily seized from him, for which he signed a receipt on temporary seizure. He was released on 31 January 2007. 6. At the OSCOC’s request, on 17 December 2007, the Zagreb County Court opened an investigation against the applicant and twenty-five other persons. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 7. At the OSCOC’s request, the Zagreb County Court ordered a search of the applicant’s laptop and two mobile phones for 5 March 2008; the applicant objected to the search relating to data before the date when the surveillance measures had been ordered against him. He did not object to the conduct or the course of the search, or to the contents of the record, which he signed. 8. On 31 December 2008 the OSCOC filed an indictment against the applicant and other defendants, transferring the materials obtained through secret surveillance to the trial court. The applicant appealed claiming that he had been unable to consult the case file containing the materials obtained though secret surveillance, but his appeal was dismissed without a clear reply to that complaint. 9. At the hearings held on 22 and 23 October and 18 December 2009, and on 26 April 2010, the applicant was served with transcripts of CD audio recordings made during the secret surveillance, which had been prepared by an IT expert witness. The relevant materials were also played back at the various hearings. The applicant was heard before the trial court on 15 December 2010. 10. On 29 December 2010 the Zagreb County Court convicted the applicant of bribing land registry officials. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for three years and prohibited from practicing law for one year. The parties appealed. 11. On 15 May 2012 the Supreme Court received a reasoned opinion by the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia on the legal and factual issues in the case, asking that the applicant’s appeal be dismissed and that his punishment be increased. These submissions were never forwarded to the defence. 12. The Supreme Court scheduled an appeal session for 10 and 11 April 2013, to which the applicant and his defence lawyer were summoned. 13. On 11 April 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded and upheld the first-instance judgment. 14. On 25 May 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicant as unfounded. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 June 2016. 15. The applicant complained: (a) about the unlawfulness of the search of his laptop and mobile phones and the use of evidence so obtained in proceedings against him; (b) about his inability to consult the case file on secret surveillance, the fact that the materials so obtained were used as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him and his consequent lack of time to prepare his defence; (c) about the fact that reasoned submissions of the State Attorney’s Office in the course of the appeal proceedings were not forwarded to the defence.

Outcome for Article 6: violation