| Sažetak (hrvatski) | Zakoniti nalog suca istrage neophodna je formalna komponenta za provođenje posebnih dokaznih radnji te ujedno i nužan preduvjet za zakonitost tako prikupljenih rezultata, o kojoj se vodi računa u nekoliko faza postupka. Kako u inicijalnoj fazi izdavanja naloga suca istrage sučevo uvjerenje o ispunjenju zakonskih uvjeta za nalaganje posebnih dokaznih radnji nitko ne može dovesti u pitanje s obzirom na to da ne postoji mogućnost podnošenja pravnog lijeka protiv izdanog naloga, to je tek u kasnijim fazama postupka na dispoziciji stranaka mogućnost da osporavaju njegovu zakonitost. Navedena se okolnost može istaknuti kako pred sudom prvog stupnja povodom prijedloga za izdvajanjem iz spisa nezakonitih dokaza prikupljenih posebnim dokaznim radnjama temeljem manjkavog naloga suca istrage tako i pred Vrhovnim sudom Republike Hrvatske povodom žalbe na rješenje prvostupanjskog suda kojim je takav prijedlog obrane odbijen. Nalogom suca istrage nužno je adekvatno obrazložiti sve konkretne okolnosti slučaja koje će potvrditi postojanje osnove sumnje protiv osumnjičenog u pogledu počinjenja kataloškog kaznenog djela, a posebno razloge zbog kojih se izvidi nisu mogli provesti na drugi, manje nametljiv način. Slijedom navedenog postavlja se pitanje rezultira li izostanak obrazloženja ili (čak) manjkavosti u obrazloženju naloga suca istrage, poput odsutnosti konkretizacije okolnosti koje opravdavaju primjenu posebnih dokaznih radnji, nezakonitošću tako prikupljenih dokaza. Ovo je istraživanje usredotočeno na sudsku praksu, a provedeno je pretraživanjem online-baze Vrhovnog suda Republike Hrvatske u kontekstu nezakonitih dokaza, napose rezultata provedenih posebnih dokaznih radnji. Također je putem online-baze analizirana praksa ESLJP-a u predmetima protiv Republike Hrvatske u kontekstu povrede konvencijskog prava na zaštitu privatnog i obiteljskog života iz čl. 8. EKLJP-a, upravo iz razloga nedostatne obrazloženosti naloga suca istrage, odnosno nedostatne sudske kontrole, ali i čl. 6. EKLJP-a koji igra važnu ulogu u domeni aposteriorne sudske kontrole u kontekstu pravičnosti postupka budući da upotreba dokaza pribavljenih kršenjem konvencijskog prava iz čl. 8. EKLJP-a može otvoriti pitanje povrede pravičnosti postupka iz čl. 6. EKLJP-a. Na podlozi provedenih istraživanja iznjedren je zaključak da je sudska kontrola zakonitosti dokaza pribavljenih posebnim dokaznim radnjama adekvatan i aktivan zaštitni mehanizam, no da se u praksi ipak pojavljuju određena pitanja koja potražuju argumentirane odgovore. Neke od tih odgovora nudi i ovaj rad te se u tom pogledu sumiraju zaključci i sintetiziraju konkretna rješenja. |
| Sažetak (engleski) | The lawfulness of the investigating judge’s order is a necessary formal component for the conduct of special evidentiary actions and a necessary precondition for the legality of the results thus collected, which is taken into account in several stages of the proceedings. Since in the initial phase of the issuing of an investigating judge’s order nobody may question the judge’s conviction of the fulfilment of the legal requirements for ordering special evidentiary actions, given that there is no possibility of filing a legal remedy against the issued order, it is only in the later stages of the proceedings that the parties have the opportunity to challenge its legality. This circumstance can be pointed out both before the first-instance court regarding the proposal to exclude from the case file illegal evidence collected by special evidentiary actions based on the investigating judge’s deficient order, and before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia regarding an appeal against the first-instance court rejecting such a proposal of the defence. In the investigating judge’s order, it is necessary to adequately explain all the specific circumstances of the case that will confirm the existence of grounds for suspicion against the suspect regarding the commission of a crime, and especially the reasons why investigations could not be conducted in another, less intrusive way. Consequently, the question arises as to whether the absence of reasoning or (even) the deficiency in the reasoning of the investigating judge’s order, such as the lack of concretisation of the circumstances justifying the application of special evidence, results in the illegality of such evidence. This research focuses on case law and was conducted by searching the online database of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia in the context of illegal evidence, especially the results of special evidentiary actions.
In addition, through an online database, the practice of the ECtHR in cases against the Republic of Croatia was analysed in the context of the violation of the Convention’s right to protection of private and family life under Art. 8 ECHR, precisely due to the insufficient reasoning of the investigating judge’s order, i.e., insufficient judicial control, but also Art. 6 ECHR, which plays an important role in the domain of a posteriori judicial review in the context of the fairness of the proceedings, since the use of evidence obtained in violation of Convention law under Art. 8 ECHR may raise the issue of violating the right to a fair trial referred to in Art. 6 ECHR. Based on the conducted research, the conclusion was drawn that the judicial control of the legality of evidence obtained by special evidentiary actions is an adequate and active protective mechanism, but that, in practice, certain questions arise that require reasoned answers. Some of these answers are offered in this paper, and, in this regard, conclusions are summarised, and concrete solutions are synthesised. |
