The thesis examines the impact of the requirement of the Slovenian Constitutional Court for a higher standard of reasoning for orders for secret investigative measures on prosecutorial and judicial practice. A properly reasoned order for such measures is crucial to prevent arbitrary conduct of law enforcement authorities as well as other potential abuses. Therefore, the focus of this paper lies in the question as to what the standard of reasoning of motions and orders for secret investigative measures has to be in order to ensure a proper ex-post review, given that the nature of such measures does not allow for prior contradictory proceedings.
The theoretical part of the paper provides an overview and critique of the current legislation on secret investigative measures, as well as an overview of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, whose decisions (influenced by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights) have raised the level of the adequacy of the reasoning required for such orders, especially with regard to the article 22(2) of the Constitution of the
Republic of Slovenia. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia has in several cases (particularly in case Up-1006/13 dated 9 June 2016) emphasised the dual role of the appropriate ex-ante judicial review: ensuring the constitutionality and legality of the interventions by the
executive branch, as well as providing for subsequent assessment of the justification of intrusions into the right to privacy.
The empirical part of the thesis analyses, on the basis of statistical data and interviews carried out with judicial stakeholders, whether the increased requirements of reasoning for orders for secret investigative measures have resulted in a notable decrease in the issuance of such orders, as well as whether this might impact the dynamics of investigations of organised crime. Lastly, the paper also examines, with an input from judicial stakeholders, the practical responses and challenges to the presented requirements of the Constitutional Court.
|