CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 16 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26476/14 Ion MAZUR and Svetlana MAZUR against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 27 March 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns use of a State authority’s cell phone numbers for private purposes and the obtaining and use by that authority of data concerning calls made by the applicants during such private use. It also concerns the severance without warning of an arrangement allowing a private business to be run from one of the phone numbers in question. It raises issues under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the facts of the case disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants properly informed that data concerning the private use of their phones could be obtained and used by their employer (see Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, §§ 65-141, 5 September 2017 (extracts) and Savotchko v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   33074/04, §§ 19-35, 28 March 2017)?   2.     Is Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention applicable to the present case? If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s property right and has there been a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights been observed (see Buzescu v.   Romania , no. 61302/00, §§ 75-98, 24 May 2005)?