CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 17 April 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 74360/12 Natalia IURCOVSCAIA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 19 November 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly unlawful interception of the applicant’s telephone communications within the framework of the criminal proceedings against her husband. It appears from the applicant’s submissions and from the materials of the case that, contrary to the domestic law, her telephone communications were intercepted without her having any quality in the criminal proceedings. Moreover, after the termination of the interception she was not informed about it, as required by the law. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the unlawfulness of the interception of her telephone communications. She further alleges under Article 13 of the Convention that she did not have an effective remedy against the aforementioned unlawful interference with her right to respect for private life. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life by virtue of interception of her telephone communications contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 227-34, ECHR 2015?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention?