Bratislava, Slovakia – Slovakia’s Specialized Criminal Court (ŠTS) in Pezinok has decided against submitting a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the admissibility of evidence extracted from seized mobile phones in the high-profile case surrounding the murder of journalist Ján Kuciak and the attempted assassinations of several prosecutors. The decision, announced on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, allows evidence obtained from the Threema messaging application to be admitted in the proceedings. This development marks a significant moment in a case that has gripped Slovakia and drawn international attention to concerns about corruption and press freedom.
The ruling came during a main hearing in the case concerning the ordering of Kuciak’s murder, as well as allegations of plotting to kill prosecutors. Judge Miroslav Mazúch, presiding over the senate, informed the court that the ŠTS would not seek clarification from the CJEU on the legality of the evidence. The proposal to raise the preliminary question had been put forward by Marek Para, the defense attorney representing Marian Kočner, a key suspect in the case. The court had previously ruled that communications from Threema would be accepted as evidence, a decision that was central to the debate over the CJEU referral.
Background to the Case and the Evidence Dispute
Ján Kuciak, an investigative journalist, and his fiancée, Martina Kušnírová, were murdered in February 2018 in Veľká Mača, a village in the Galanta district of Slovakia. Kuciak had been investigating alleged ties between politicians and organized crime, specifically focusing on fraudulent EU funding claims. The investigation into his murder quickly became a national scandal, leading to widespread protests and the resignation of then-Prime Minister Robert Fico. The case has been marked by numerous twists and turns, including previous annulments of convictions by the Supreme Court of Slovakia.
A key aspect of the prosecution’s case rests on evidence obtained from mobile phones seized from individuals connected to the alleged plot. Specifically, communications extracted from the encrypted messaging app Threema have been presented as crucial evidence linking Kočner to the planning of the murders. Kočner’s defense team argued that the method of obtaining and analyzing this data potentially violated privacy rights and raised questions about the admissibility of the evidence under EU law. They contended that a ruling from the CJEU was necessary to clarify the legal framework surrounding the use of such evidence.
The Court’s Reasoning for Rejecting the Referral
Judge Mazúch explained the court’s decision by stating that a previous ruling by the CJEU already addressed the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained from mobile phones. He argued that this prior decision provided sufficient legal guidance, rendering a novel referral unnecessary. According to reports from Aktuality.sk, Mazúch also noted that Kočner himself had, in 2019, suggested that the case files be made available to an expert for analysis of the Threema communications. This, the judge argued, indicated a prior acceptance of the evidence’s potential relevance.
Mazúch further emphasized the principle of proportionality, balancing the right to privacy with the right to life and the necessitate for an effective investigation. He stated that an effective investigation requires the gathering of all reasonable evidence to clarify the facts of the case and to allow victims and their families to seek justice. The court’s decision reflects a weighing of these competing rights, ultimately prioritizing the pursuit of justice in a case of significant public importance.
Defense Response and Ongoing Proceedings
Marek Para, Kočner’s attorney, expressed his disagreement with the court’s decision, stating that it would have been prudent to seek guidance from the CJEU while there was still an opportunity to present further evidence. He indicated that the defense team would respect the court’s ruling but maintained their concerns about the admissibility of the evidence. According to Para, the existing CJEU ruling regarding data acquisition requires a court order or authorization from an independent authority, regardless of the specific criminal investigation involved.
What we have is the third time the case has been heard by the ŠTS, following two previous annulments by the Supreme Court of Slovakia. Miroslav Marček and Tomáš Szabó, who carried out the murders, have already been sentenced to 25 years in prison, while Zoltán Andruskó received a 15-year sentence. Marian Kočner and Alena Zsuzová are accused of ordering the murder, and Dušan K. And Darko D. Are accused of plotting to kill prosecutors Maroš Žilinka and Daniel Lipšica, as well as Peter Šufliarsky. While the plots against the prosecutors were never carried out, the accusations remain a central part of the broader investigation into organized crime and corruption in Slovakia.
Key Developments in the Case
- February 2018: Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová are murdered.
- 2019: Marian Kočner suggests expert analysis of Threema communications.
- March 11, 2026: ŠTS decides against referring the case to the CJEU.
- Ongoing: The trial of Marian Kočner and Alena Zsuzová continues.
The decision by the ŠTS to proceed without a ruling from the CJEU is likely to be closely watched by legal experts and observers of the case. It underscores the complexities of balancing privacy rights with the need for effective criminal investigations, particularly in cases involving sensitive evidence obtained through digital means. The ongoing trial promises to be a pivotal moment in Slovakia’s efforts to address corruption and ensure accountability for those involved in the murder of Ján Kuciak and the attempted attacks on the judiciary.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for April 15, 2026, where further evidence is expected to be presented. Readers interested in following the developments of this case can find updates on the website of Aktuality.sk, a leading Slovak news outlet. We encourage readers to share their thoughts and perspectives on this critical case in the comments section below.