Published on 26 August 2024
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 7747/21
Denisa BLAŽOVÁ
against Slovakia
lodged on 27 January 2021
communicated on 10 July 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns surveillance measures authorised and implemented by Slovakian authorities in the context of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant’s partner and his relative upon suspicion of transborder criminal activities between Slovakia and the Czech Republic. In particular, in January 2017, the Specialised Criminal Court authorised undercover measures to be applied on cars operated by the applicant’s partner and his relative consisting, in particular, of the use of listening and recording devices inside the cars, to be carried out over several months in 2017. In parallel, similar undercover measures were authorised by Czech authorities on the territory of the Czech Republic on the basis of requests for mutual assistance issued by the Slovakian authorities.
According to the applicant, who had also been driving these cars in the relevant time, the undercover measures were not brought to her attention until 22 January 2020. In March 2020 she challenged the measures before the Slovakian Constitutional Court which, however, considered itself not to have jurisdiction to examine the applicant’s complaints as they were premature (decision no. II. ÚS 326/2020 of 7 July 2020).
The applicant complains that the undercover measures unlawfully and arbitrarily interfered with her right to respect for private life and that she did not have any effective remedy under Slovakian law to challenge these measures.
The complaints fall to be examined under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, under paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the use of listening and recording devices in the cars (VIN: WAUZZZ4F27N120439 and VIN: WBAFV71010C774403) authorised by the orders of the Specialised Criminal Court of 18 January 2017?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?