CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2012

.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 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } THIRD SECTION Application no. 42065/06 by Ivars KIBERMANIS against Latvia   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Did the applicant exhaust all available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the search and seizure at his office on December 2004 and his attempts to verify the lawfulness of the tapping of his telephone from 14 June to 14 November 2004? Were the remedies effective and accessible?   In particular, the parties are requested to comment on the competence of the investigating judge under section 41 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, and the interpretation given by the investigating judge in the decision of 28   March 2006 adopted within the criminal proceedings at issue.   2.     Was there a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, during the search and seizure at his office on December   2004? In particular, were there adequate legal guarantees which would ensure that only the documents relevant for the given criminal proceedings were extracted from the seized hard drives?   3.     Was there a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, with respect to the applicant’s attempts to verify the lawfulness of the investigation measure by which his telephone conversations were tapped from 14 June to 14 November 2004? The Government are requested to furnish a copy of or any other information concerning the decision by which the aforementioned measure was authorised by a judge of the Supreme Court.