The legal regulation of special means by the intelligence agency of the Slovak Republic within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Taking into account what we have mentioned above, we believe that the current legislation on the use of special means by the intelligence agencies of the Slovak Republic can be assessed critically. The use of information and technical means by intelligence agencies in the Slovak Republic is governed by a separate legal regulation, Act no. 166/2003 (n 11). and therefore we will not deal in this paper with the compliance of its provisions with the case law of the ECtHR. We will focus our attention on information and operational means, with the exception of legalisation documents and legends. These are supportive in nature, and their use does not itself constitute an interference with fundamental human rights and freedoms.

From the point of view of the case law of the ECtHR, it seems the most problematic regulation on the monitoring of persons and things consists of issues related to the process of authorising the use of such means (in the case of the SIS, the Director), as well as issues of ex post notification of the use of such means against a person unless there are national security grounds for not doing so. However, even in these cases, there should be a mechanism to examine the justification of the interference with human rights and freedoms by the state authority.

The current legal regulation of using a mock transfer of things or controlled supply by intelligence agencies was introduced into intelligence laws by Act no. 444/2015 Coll., as subsequently amended, changing and amending the Act no. 300/2005 Coll. on the Criminal Code, amending certain laws (the so-called anti-terrorist package). Specifically, this is S. 11(1d) Exchange of things and letter e) fictitious transfer of property in Act no. 46/1993 Coll. on the Slovak Information Service (similarly in the Military Intelligence Act).

A condition is set for the lawful use of these information and operational resources based on the prior written consent of the judge of the court competent according to a special regulation (ex ante). This special regulation means the provision of S. 4a of the Act no. 166/2003 Coll. on the Protection of Privacy against Unauthorized Use of Information Technology and on changes and amendments of certain laws (the Eavesdropping Protection Act), as subsequently amended. The process of authorising the use of these means is, in our view, in line with the requirements set out in the case law of the ECtHR. The absence of a notification mechanism, or any other means, similar to tracking people and things, may be a problem.

Information-operational means - persons acting in favour of the intelligence service - in our opinion, do not represent a fundamental problem from the point of view of the case law of the ECtHR. In certain cases, the use of information obtained in criminal proceedings would involve a procedure under the applicable law. The process of obtaining intelligence is classified, and, as a rule, its result - intelligence - is usually classified. Pursuant to the provisions of S. 10(2) of the Act no. 46/1993 Coll., the Slovak Information Service is obliged to ensure the protection of special means against disclosure and misuse (a similar provision is contained in the Military Intelligence Act).

In order to ensure the right to an effective defence, it is possible to find a solution in the Act no. 215/2004 Coll. on the Classified Information Protection and on changes and amendments to certain acts, the Institute of Another Authorized Person (S. 35(2)). For persons acting in favour of the information agency, we again refer to S. 23(2) of the Act no. 46/1993 Coll. on the Slovak Information Service, according to which the Director of the Slovak Information Service (and, by analogy, the Director of the Military Intelligence) may decide on the waiver of confidentiality. The Criminal Procedure Code also contains provisions on a witness whose identity is confidential, which, in our opinion, are also applicable to members and persons acting in favour of the intelligence agency after meeting the legal conditions.

Of course, the activities of persons acting in favour of intelligence services must comply with the requirements of the case law of the ECtHR in the context of the regulation of the use of a `provocateur' agent. The agent's conduct must meet certain standards so that it does not deviate from the limits of legality. Clear limitations and guarantees distinguish the permissible procedure from guiding or provoking the commission of a criminal offence, which is in conflict with Art. 6 of the Convention. The public interest cannot justify the use of evidence obtained by provocation, so criminal proceedings would not be fair from the outset. Teixeira de Castro v Portugal, App no 25829/94, 9 June 1998 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58193%22]}> accessed 22 January 2022. The ECtHR stated in its decision-making process that the use of special investigative methods does not itself lead to a violation of the right to a fair trial. Ramanauskas v Lithuania, App no 74420/01, 5 February 2008 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22ite mid%22:[%22001-84866%22]}> accessed 22 January 2022.

In conclusion, we quote the provision of the Art. 8 of the Convention on the right to respect for private and family life:

1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

REFERENCES

1. Act no. 46/1993 Coll. on the Slovak Information Service, as amended <https://www.slov- lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/1993/46/20160101> accessed 22 January 2022; Act no. 198/1994 Coll. on Military Intelligence, as amended <https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne- predpisy/SK/ZZ/1994/198/20180401> accessed 22 January 2022.

2. Vasko A, 'Moznosti vyuzitia spravodajskych informacii v trestnom konani' in Bratislavske pravnicke forum 2019: zakonnost a pripustnost' dokazov v trestnom konani: zbornik prispevkov z medzinarodnej vedeckej konferencie, Bratislava, 14. -15. februara 2019 (Bratislava, Univerzita Komenskeho v Bratislave 2019) 88-99.

3. Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms <https://www. echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf> accessed 22 January 2022.

4. Lison M, Vasko A, 'Teorie zpravodajske Cinnosti' in V Porada et al (eds) Bezpecnostni vedy (Plzen, Ales Cenek s.r.o. 2019) 375 et seq.

5. Laml R, 'Narodne a nadnarodne z hladiska spravodajskej Cinnosti malej krajiny' in Zbornik z medzinarodneho sympozia, ktoru zorganizovali Asociacia byvalych spravodajskych dostojnikov spolu s Fakultou prava Paneuropskej vysokej skoly dna 8. 12. 2010 na temu 'Narodne versus nadnarodnezaujmy vcinnostispravodajskych sluzieb' (Bratislava: Eurokodex 2010) 3-9.

6. Grach M, 'Spravodajske sluzby a ochrana statu' in Literarny tyzdennik (Bratislava 1998) 5.

7. Act no. 166/2003 Coll. on the Privacy Protection against Unauthorized Use of Information and Technical Means and on the amendments and supplementation of some laws, as amended < https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2003/166/20160101> accessed 22 January 2022.

8. Tittlova M, 'Teoreticke a prakticke problemy odpocuvania a zaznamu telekomunikacnej prevadzky v trestnom konani' in J Zahora (ed), Teoreticke a prakticke problemy vyuzivania informacno-technickych prostriedkov v trestnom konani (Praha, Leges 2017) 288.

9. Szabo andVissyv Hungary, Appno37138/14<http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-160020)> accessed 22 January 2022.

10. Pysk V,'Z aktualni judikatury Evropskeho soudu pro lidska prava - ochrana utajovanych informacii' in Spravni pravo, Legislative priloha C. II, rocnik X (Praha, Ministerstvo vnitra Ceske republiky 2018) XLII- XLIX.

11. Klass and others v Germany, App no 5029/71, Judgment of 6 September 1978 <https://www. stradalex.com/en/sl_src_publ_jur_int/document/echr_5029-71> accessed 22 January 2022.

12. R Zakharov v Russia, App no 47143/06, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 4 December 2015 <https://policehumanrightsresources.org/roman-zakharov-v-russia- 47143-06> accessed 22 January 2022.

13. Amann vSwitzerland, App no 27798/95, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 16 February 2000 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Amann%20v.%20Switzerland %22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%2 2itemid%22:[%22001-58497%22]}> accessed 22 January 2022.

14. Kennedy v The United Kingdom, App no 26839/05, Judgment of 15 May 2010 <https://www. stradalex.com/en/sl_src_publ_jur_int/document/echr_26839-05> accessed 22 January 2022.

15. Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media BV and others v The Netherlands, App no 39315/06, Judgment of 22 November 2012 <https://www.stradalex.com/nl/sl_src_publ_ jur_int/document/echr_39315-06_001-99089> accessed 22 January 2022.

16. Lambert vFrance, App no 23618/94, Judgment of 24 August 1998 <https://www.stradalex. com/en/sl_src_publ_jur_int/document/cedh_23618-94_001-47619> accessed 22 January 2022.

17. Savovi v Bulgaria, App no 7222/05, Judgment of 27 November 2012 <https://www. stradalex.com/fr/sl_src_publ_jur_int/document/echr_7222-05> accessed 22 January 2022.

18. Copland v The United Kingdom, App no 62617/00, Judgment of 3 April 2007 <https:// www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Copland-v-UK-ECHR-3-Apr-2007.pdf> accessed 22 January 2022.

19. Uzun v Germany, App no 35623/05, Judgment of 2 September 2010 <https://www. legislationline.org/download/id/7570/file/ECHR_case_Uzun_v_Germany_2010_en.pdf> accessed 22 January 2022.

20. Dumitru Popescu vRomania (No 2), App no 71525/01, Judgment of 26 April 2007 <https:// hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-80352%22]}> accessed 22 January 2022.

21. Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v Bulgaria, App no 62540/00, Judgment of 28 June 2007 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22item id%22:[%22001-81323%22]}> accessed 22 January 2022.

22. Weber and Saravia v Germany, App no 54934/00 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22item id%22:[%22001-76586%22]}> accessed 22 January 2022.

23. Teixeira de Castro vPortugal, App no 25829/94, 9 June 1998 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/en g#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58193%22]}> accessed 22 January 2022.

24. Ramanauskas vLithuania, App no 74420/01,5 February 2008 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fr e#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-84866%22]}> accessed 22 January 2022.

Размещено на Allbest.ru