CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 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 }   Communicated on 21 June 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 42722/13 Constantin Cătălin CAPRARU against Romania lodged on 25 June 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lack of award of non-pecuniary compensation for the unlawful request and use of the listing of the applicant’s (a police officer) private telephone calls in the context of a disciplinary investigation leading to his sanctioning with the postponement of promotion for a period of three years. On 14 January 2013 the Iaşi Court of Appeal decided that the request and use of the listings by the applicant’s superiors had been unlawful and annulled the disciplinary sanction. On the same occasion, the applicant’s request for non-pecuniary damage for a breach of his right to private life due to the unlawful request and use of the listing in question was dismissed, the domestic court considering that the annulment of the disciplinary sanction was a sufficient redress for the applicant. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant still claim to be the victim of a violation of his rights under Article 8 within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, considering that the domestic courts acknowledged that the request and use of the listing of his telephone calls had been unlawful? Did the applicant obtain sufficient redress for the said request and use which were found to be unlawful and, if not, are there any reasonable opportunities for him to obtain such redress before the domestic authorities?   2.     Assuming that the applicant can still be considered a victim under the Convention, do the specific circumstances in which the listing of his telephone calls was requested and used amount to a violation of Article 8?