Abstract

The article deals with the issue of the use in criminal proceedings of the so-called "randomfinds" obtained during operational eavesdropping. This issue is governed by Article 168bof the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context "accidental finds" are evidence of offenceother than eavesdropping by a eavesdropped person or any offence by person not covered bythe eavesdropping order. This provision literally allows permission to use materialsin the above-mentioned cases, if the crime is prosecuted ex officio crime or tax crime.This regulation raises some doubts of a guarantee or constitutional nature among parts of thelegal community. The main problem is to the subjective and material scope. The positionsare quite divergent both in doctrine and in jurisprudence. The purpose of this article isto analyze the current regulation and the reasons for the dispute in relation to the viewsexpressed in this respect in the doctrine and national and Strasbourg case law.The considerations end the presentation of the Authors' position.