ZOLTÁN VARGA v. SLOVAKIA

• Judgment Date: 20 July 2021
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0720JUD005836112
• Counsel: ŠKUBLA & PARTNERI s.r.o.
• Date: 20 July 2021
• Application Number: 58361/12;25592/16;27176/16
• Court: First Section (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: Eslovaquia
• Applied Rules: 8;8-1;8-2;35;35-3-a;41

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF ZOLTÁN VARGA v. SLOVAKIA

(Applications nos. 58361/12 and 2 others)

JUDGMENT

Art 8 • Private life • Practically unfettered power exercised by intelligence service implementing surveillance operation, without adequate legal safeguards • Lack of clarity of the applicable jurisdictional rules, lack of procedures for the implementation of the existing rules and flaws in their application • Storage of primary and derivative material subject to confidential internal rules without external control • Lack of lawful basis for retention of primary material

STRASBOURG

20 July 2021

FINAL

22/11/2021

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Ksenija Turković, President,
Péter Paczolay [present via video link],
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Gilberto Felici,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
Ladislav Duditš, ad hoc judge [present via video link],
and Renata Degener, Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

three applications (nos. 58361/12, 25592/16 and 27176/16) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Slovak national, Mr Zoltán Varga (“the applicant”), on 6 September 2012 and 4 and 9 May 2016, respectively;

the decision to give notice to the Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention about (i) the implementation of three surveillance warrants concerning the applicant, (ii) the creation and retention of various material on the basis of that surveillance, (iii) the alleged lack of safeguards against abuse, (iv) the alleged leak of information concerning the applicant, and (v) the alleged lack of an effective remedy, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed;

the decision of the President of the Section to appoint Mr Ladislav Duditš to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 (a) of the Rules of Court), Ms A. Poláčková, the judge elected in respect of Slovakia, having withdrawn from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3);

the parties’ observations;

the Chamber’s decision to lift anonymity previously granted to the applicant (Rule 47 § 4);

Having deliberated in private on 29 June 2021,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The three applications originate from various facts linked to a surveillance operation carried out in 2005 and 2006 by the Slovak Intelligence Service (“the SIS”). In 2011 the existence of that operation became publicly known, with reference to the codename “Gorilla”. Since then, the operation and matters allegedly revealed by...