CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 avril 2019

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 30 April 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 459/18 Mohammed Imran SABER against Norway lodged on 27 December 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns search of the applicant’s smart phone, through which access to correspondence with his lawyers could be obtained. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant submits that domestic law applicable to the search of his smart phone lacked foreseeability and quality and that proper legal safeguards were not in place in order to ensure that the search did not impinge on legal professional privilege.     QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.   Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, home and/or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If yes, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8   § 2?   2.     Do any separate issues arise, at the present time, under Article 6, and notably § 3 (b) or (c), of the Convention? If yes, has there been a violation of rights afforded to the applicant under that provision?   The parties are particularly invited to address the foreseeability and quality of the law applicable to the search of the applicant’s smart phone, notably in respect of the procedure concerning sifting of materials covered by legal professional privilege, and whether proper legal safeguards in that respect were in place (see, mutatis mutandis , M v. the Netherlands , no. 2156/10, § 88, 25 July 2017; and Sallinen and Others v. Finland , no. 50882/99, §§ 80-94, 27 September 2005).