Communicated on 16 February 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 47074/12
Zoran GRBA
against Croatia
lodged on 5 July 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zoran Grba, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1965 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Pula. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Radobuljac and Ms L. Horvat, lawyers practising in Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date in July 2008 an investigating judge of the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli) ordered the use of secret surveillance measures and the use of informants in respect of the applicant in connection with a suspicion of money counterfeiting. The measures were ordered for the period between 21 July and 21 November 2008.
In August 2008 the applicant met an undercover police officer who purchased from him a certain amount of counterfeited money. In the ensuing period the undercover agent connected the applicant with another undercover agent whom he presented as his friend interested for further purchase of the counterfeits.
In the ensuing period there were several contacts between the applicant and the police agents including eight unsuccessful attempts of the agents to contact the applicant in the period between 12 and 16 October 2008.
On 17 October 2008 the police agents made further purchase of the counterfeits.
On 18 November 2008 an investigating judge extended the use of the secret investigative measures for the period between 21 November and 21 December 2008.
On 22 November 2008 the police agents made further purchase of the counterfeits.
On 17 February 2009 the applicant was indicted in the Pazin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Pazinu) on charges of money counterfeiting.
On 13 May 2009 the Pazin Municipal Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment.
The applicant challenged the first-instance judgment and on 20 October 2009 the Pula County Court quashed it and ordered a retrial on the grounds that the first-instance court used the statements of the undercover agents concerning their conversations with the applicant, which was unlawfully obtained evidence under the relevant domestic law.
After the retrial, on 27 April 2010 the Pazin Municipal Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment. It held that there was nothing suggesting that the applicant had been offered any special reward or gift by the police agents which could be considered as entrapment. Therefore, it dismissed the applicant’s complaint to that effect.
The applicant challenged the judgment of the Pazin Municipal Court raising the plea of entrapment and arguing, inter alia, that the orders for the use of secret investigative measures issued by the investigating judge lacked the relevant reasoning, as required under the relevant domestic law.
On 24 September 2010 the Pula County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded and upheld his conviction on the grounds that the orders of the investigating judge were based on a probable cause to believe that the applicant had participated in a criminal activity and that it had been necessary to use the special investigative measures. It also held that there was nothing suggesting the applicant’s entrapment.
The applicant then lodged a request for an extraordinary review of a final judgment before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) reiterating his arguments of unlawfulness of the use of secret investigative measures and entrapment.
On 5 April 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints as ill-founded and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
On 24 June 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) reiterating his arguments before the lower courts.
On 8 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the decision of the Supreme Court did not concern a determination of his rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention, about the alleged entrapment by agent provocateur and the alleged unlawfulness of the secret surveillance orders and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him with regard to the use of evidence so obtained.
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, (i) was the applicant a victim of an entrapment by agent provocateur and did he have appropriate procedural safeguards in that respect; and (ii) did he have appropriate procedural safeguards with regard to the use of evidence obtained by the secret surveillance orders in the criminal proceedings against him, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and the confidentially of 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 in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
The Government are required to submit two copies of all relevant documents in the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy