CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } THIRD SECTION Application no. 8406/06 STICHTING OSTADE BLADE and F.J. KALLENBERG against the Netherlands lodged on 1 March 2006   The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Given that the domestic courts acknowledged violations of the applicant foundation’s rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention in relation to the search – aiming to find links between the organisation that claimed responsibility for the bomb attack and the magazine –, can the applicant foundation still claim to be a “victim” for purposes of Article 34 of the Convention?   2.     In the affirmative, has the search – aiming to find the letter of the organisation that claimed responsibility for the bomb attack of 16 April 1996 – interfered with the applicant foundation’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?