CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } THIRD SECTION Application no. 21979/08 Vladimirs ODEROVS against Latvia   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Vladimirs Oderovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Rīga. He is represented before the Court by Ms   L.   Defalque, a lawyer practising in Brussels. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 27 September 2005 the applicant was declared a suspect in criminal proceedings which had been initiated on 5 November 2004. The official charges were brought against him on 8 June 2006. According to the applicant since 8 February 2005 (on which date certain documents were seized at a company of which he was a board member) he had been represented by a sworn attorney O.S. in connection with the criminal proceedings. The applicant has submitted four transcripts of telephone conversations between him and O.S. that were made between 8   April and 7   October 2005. Apparently the transcripts were appended to the criminal case-file and the recordings of the conversations were played back during a court hearing in the criminal case against the applicant. On 21 December 2007 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor General about the fact that his telephone conversations with his attorney had been intercepted and that the recordings of those conversations had been played back at the court hearing. The applicant argued that the investigating prosecutor I.K. had been aware that the conversations had taken place between an attorney and his client and had therefore violated the Law on Bar Association, the Constitution as well as other legal acts. The applicant invited the Prosecutor General to assess the legality of the actions of I.K. and to decide whether I.K. was suitable for the position of a prosecutor. The applicant also called for criminal proceedings to be instituted against I.K. On 3 January 2008 a prosecutor of the Specialised Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime and Other Offences adopted an unmotivated resolution to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings against I.K. On 15 January 2008 the applicant appealed against the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings and also complained that the reply of 3 January 2008 had not answered to his request to evaluate the legality of I.K.’s actions and his suitability for the position of a prosecutor. He invoked, inter alia , Article   8 of the Convention. On 21 January 2008 the applicant’s complaint was dismissed by a final decision of a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General. The decision indicated that the applicant had authorised O.S. to represent him in the criminal proceedings only on 27 September 2005. Therefore the intercepted conversations prior to that date had taken place between the applicant and “the citizen [O.S.], not the defence attorney [O.S.]”. As to the conversation of 7 October 2005 the decision pointed out that it was not the telephone conversations of O.S. that had been intercepted but the conversations of the applicant. The interception of the applicant’s conversations had been duly authorised by a judge of the Supreme Court. In rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention the decision referred to the permissible limitations set down by the second paragraph of that Article. B.     Relevant domestic law Section 6 of the Law on Bar Association provides as follows: “In their professional activities advocates shall be independent and subject only to the law. State and municipal institutions, courts, prosecutors and pre-trial investigation institutions shall guarantee the independence of advocates. It is prohibited: ... 3) to control the postal and telegraph correspondence as well as the documents which advocates have received or prepared while providing legal assistance, to examine or confiscate them, as well as to execute searches in order to find and confiscate such correspondence and documents; 4) to control, including by using the procedural measures referred to in paragraph 3 of this section, the information systems and means of communication, including electronic means of communication, used by advocates in providing legal assistance ...; ... Unlawful actions of an advocate in the interests of a client and supporting unlawful actions of a client shall not be recognised as the provision of legal assistance.” Section 24 (5) of the Law on Operational Measures forbids to use operational measures in order to “purposefully acquire information while sworn attorneys ... are providing professional assistance, except for the situations when [the attorneys] themselves are the objects of operational measures”. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention about the interference with his confidential communication with his attorney. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the interception of his telephone conversations with his attorney which are covered by an attorney-client privilege. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit information and documents concerning the authorisation of the interception of the applicant’s telephone conversations.