The Slovak law includes a variations to a criminal act of invasive recording - this is what it reads like: the criminal offence of dangerous pursuits (interference with person’s privacy repeatedly and wilfully)

The verdict as well as the decision on admissibility of the evidence and the reasoning were recently issued (but also published and commented on within a professional website for lawyers) by Peter Šamko, a judge of the Bratislava Regional Court. 

In this particular case, a witness in criminal proceedings who also acted in the capacity of an eye witness, understandably without the defendant's consent, recorded two incidents where an assailant assaulted a woman and later placed it on the internet pointing out the violent tendencies of the perpetrator.

The incidents lead to the criminal proceedings against the perpetrator (domestic violence, sexual assault and battery).

The court had to asses whether
such a witness who had recorded the perpetrator (a neighbour who had long had a suspicion the man was violent against his wife) is a credible witness in the criminal proceedings against the perpetrator - defense argued the witness should be excluded and that he is a stalker
such recording was in any way admissible even if recorded without any prior consent of the person concerned and this definitely in breach of the privacy of the perpetrators 

The court held that in general  is  unlawful to film, record or photograph a private persons on a mobile phone or electronic or other recording device  without their consent and to publish the recording on the internet  or in the media. 

The court reiterated this not only is a violation of the confidentiality of personal expression, but amount or may amount to a criminal offence of dangerous pursuits  punishable in extreme cases by up to five years' imprisonment as a criminal offence. The court added this is also a violation of the Civil Code and the affected private person may seek compensation or other form or just satisfaction against the author of the recording.

In  the case in question, the defence sought to have this evidence dismissed as inadmissible on the grounds of the doctrine of legality and as unlawful but the judge referred to the procedural autonomy of the court, and discretion of the judge to asses, dismiss or exclude evidence.

Catching the perpetrator in the act
According to the Regional Court of Bratislava, in this case, recording the fight between the victim and the perpetrator  on a mobile phone can be deemed to be analogical to the act of catching the perpetrator in the act and detaining him until the police arrive. The Criminal Procedure Code provides for such a possibility. Here, the court in this instance case points out the act of recording can be likened to merely  "catching the suspect" with a mobile phone.

The court further stated that 
"If it is lawful to restrain a suspect's personal liberty - to physically impede his movement - then surely the act of 'catching' a suspect by means of a video recording is not contrary to law,". In this case, according to the court's decision, the interference is less serious than actually physically restraining her/him. 

In  issuing  this decision, however, the district court drew a distinction between a one-time accidental catch or targeted  recording of potential criminal offence  the act and a systematic and repetitive, long-term invasive recording.

Court: "Spying" invasive recording  is unacceptable
The court emphasised that
"It must be stated that it is unacceptable in principle for a private person to purposefully violate the provisions of the Civil Code, on the grounds that they are recording something in order to possibly obtain information that might be useful at sometime in the near or distant future in a criminal or other proceeding,"