CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sECB3FADA { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34515/04 Sergey Anatolyevich KULIK against Ukraine lodged on 14 September 2004 The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s initial Statement of Facts and Questions to the Parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Did the disclosure of the video recording of the crime scene reconstruction on 5 February 2003 to the private TV channel “Kyiv” constitute an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? Was any such interference compatible with the second paragraph of that Article? In particular, was the disclosure in compliance with domestic law? If so, was the domestic law sufficiently precise and did it provide for any guarantees against abuse? Was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   2.     Was the applicant’s placement in a metal cage during the hearings held before the Supreme Court on 25 March 2004 and 26 July 2005 compatible with his rights under Article 3 of the Convention?