Communicated on 28 August 2017
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos 14590/15 and 25405/15
Stjepan RINGWALD against Croatia
and Vanja RINGWALD against Croatia
lodged on 17 March 2015 and 15 May 2015 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant in the first case, Mr Stjepan Ringwald, is a Croatian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Zagreb.
The applicant in the second case, Ms Vanja Ringwald, is a Croatian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Šibenik. She is represented before the Court by Mr R. Špaleta, a lawyer practising in Drniš.
The circumstances of the case
1. The criminal proceedings
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 December 2009 the Šibenik County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Šibeniku) asked an investigating judge of the Šibenik County Court (Županijski sud u Šibeniku) to authorise the use of secret surveillance measures in respect of G.Š. on the grounds that he was suspected of aggravated robbery.
During the investigation and the use of secret surveillance measures against G.Š., the authorities intercepted and recorded a number of telephone conversations and messages in connection with suspected drug trafficking. The first applicant’s phone number was noted in that respect.
Following an application lodged on 8 January 2010 by the Šibenik County State Attorney’s Office, on 11 January 2010 the investigating judge of the Šibenik County Court authorised the use of secret surveillance measures in respect of the applicants on the grounds that they were suspected of drug trafficking.
On 23 February 2010 the investigating judge ordered a search of the second applicant’s house. On the same day some 4,700 grams of marijuana were seized and the applicants were arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking.
Following the investigation, on 17 May 2010 the applicants were indicted in the Šibenik County Court on charges of drug trafficking.
On 18 February 2011 the Šibenik County Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced the first applicant to five years’ imprisonment and the second applicant to two years’ imprisonment.
Both applicants lodged appeals against the first-instance judgment. The first applicant challenged the first-instance judgment before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), arguing that his telephone calls had been unlawfully tapped. He claimed, inter alia, that the secret surveillance orders had lacked relevant reasoning and had been issued contrary to the requirements of the relevant domestic law. He also contended that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated because of the statements of the head of the Šibenik-Knin County police department (see below).
On 12 July 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for a re-trial. It found that the first applicant’s complaints concerning the surveillance measures and the breach of his presumption of innocence were ill-founded but that the first-instance court should have examined some other evidence.
On 24 April 2012 the Šibenik County Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced the first applicant to five years’ imprisonment and the second applicant to one year’s imprisonment.
Both applicants lodged appeals against the first-instance judgment. The first applicant argued again that his telephone calls had been unlawfully tapped and that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated.
On 20 September 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals as unfounded and upheld the first-instance judgment. The Supreme Court found that statements made to the media by the head of the Šibenik-Knin County police department had violated the applicants’ right to be presumed innocent as guaranteed under Article 28 of the Constitution, but that such a violation could not have affected the fairness of the proceedings conducted by a three-judge panel composed of professionals.
Both applicants lodged constitutional complaints before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), arguing, inter alia, that their right to be presumed innocent had been violated. The first applicant also complained of unlawful secret surveillance and use of evidence obtained thereby in the criminal proceedings against him.
On 1 December 2014 the Constitutional Court, endorsing the reasoning of the Supreme Court, dismissed the first applicant’s constitutional complaint as unfounded on the grounds that the proceedings as a whole had been fair. It also held that the statements of the head of the Šibenik-Knin County police department to the media could have led the public to believe that the applicants had been guilty of the offences at issue.
On 1 December 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the second applicant’s constitutional complaint as unfounded. The Constitutional Court endorsed the lower courts’ findings and grounds given for their judgments without any further specific reasoning in respect of the second applicant’s complaint of a violation of the presumption of innocence.
2. Statements of the police
On 23 February 2010 a television report about the applicants’ arrest was broadcast on NOVA TV, a television channel with national coverage. The report included statements given by certain police officers and the head of the Šibenik-Knin County police department, who said:
“In 2004 he was arrested and convicted in France, when he was in possession of 21 kg of hashish ...
For organised crime, for associating for the purpose of committing such crime, there is punishment by imprisonment for at least five years or by life imprisonment. It means they will not get away with this.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that the statements made to the media by the police amounted to a breach of the presumption of innocence as guaranteed under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
The first applicant also complains, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention, that there was unlawful interference with his right to private life and his correspondence, and that evidence unlawfully obtained by secret surveillance was used in the criminal proceedings against him.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case with regard to the statements made by the police in the television report broadcast by NOVA TV?
2. As regards the use of secret surveillance measures in respect of the first applicant (case no. 14590/15), has there been an interference with the first applicant’s right to respect for private life and correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
3. Did the first 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, did he have adequate procedural safeguards as regards the use of information obtained by secret surveillance measures as evidence in the proceedings?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy