Tajni nadzor komunikacije - usklađenost sa praksom Evropskog suda za ljudska prava

Abstract

U radu je reč o zaštiti prava na privatnost pri primeni tajnog nadzora komunikacije u krivičnom postupku. Brojni slučajevi iz prakse Evropskog suda za ljudska prava u vezi sa čl. 8 Evropske konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda i zaštitom prava na privatnost ukazuju na značaj i složenost ovog pitanja. Efikasno i ekspeditivno dokazivanje najtežih oblika kriminaliteta može iziskivati ograničavanje prava na privatnost, ali standardi koji se tiču predvidljivosti, ograničavanja diskrecionih ovlašćenja i kontrole zakonitosti ne smeju pri tome biti zanemareni. U radu su predstavljeni standardi koje je osmislio Evropski sud za ljudska prava, te je proučavan stepen usklađenosti srpske regulative s njima. Autor nalazi da je jedan od ključnih problema neobaveštavanje zainteresovanog lica o primeni tajnog nadzora komunikacije, s obzirom na to da iz ovoga proizlazi nemogućnost ostvarivanja prava na žalbu, ali i nemogućnost da se na osnovu negativnih primera iz prakse unapredi postupanje nadležnih.

The paper deals with the protection of privacy rights in the connection with the application of special investigative actions in criminal proceedings. An increasing number of cases of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to Article 8 and the protection of privacy rights points out to the importance and complexity of this issue. On the one hand, public authorities should provide mechanisms and resources for effective and expeditious prosecution of the most serious forms of crime, but on the other hand, standards related to predictability, limited discretionary powers and control over the legality of the procedure should not be ignored either. This raises the question of how to achieve a balance between these competing interests. This paper presents the standards created by the European Court of Human Rights when dealing with privacy issues in connection with criminal proceedings, and reflects at the the degree of compliance of Serbian legislation with them. The author concludes that the key problem is the nonexistence of notification for the interested person, given that it implies the inability to exercise the right to appeal, and also the inability to put examples of bad practice to good use.