| Applicant name | simic |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | SERBIA |
| Application no. | 9172/21 |
| Date | 14/01/2025 |
| Judges | Peeter Roosma, President, Diana Kovatcheva, Mateja Đurović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Not necessary (prevention of crime and disorder) |
| Type of privacy | informational privacy |
| Keywords | surveillance |
| Facts of the case | Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the phone tapping extension orders clearly amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to “private life” and “correspondence”. Furthermore, no issue arises with the requirement of lawfulness or the legitimate aim of that measure. The only remaining salient point is thus its proportionality. |
| Analysis | In this regard, the Court observes that the extension orders issued by the Zrenjanin High Court were primarily based on a mere reference to the public prosecutor’s request for the use of such measures, alongside a finding that the investigation had already established the existence of the “applicant’s communications with other suspects and involvement in a criminal conspiracy”. The orders also included the statutory phrase that “the investigation could not be conducted by other means or would be difficult.” However, no substantive analysis was offered as to why the investigation could not have been pursued through other means or why relying on such means would be difficult in the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the extension orders in question did not live up to the requirements of Article 8 in so far as they did not contain a meaningful and effective assessment of whether the use of secret surveillance was necessary and justified in the given circumstances. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 800 (eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points |
| Documents | Judgment |