CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juin 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 5 June 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35397/11 Titus SĂRĂTEANU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 17 May 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns interception of the applicant’s phone calls outside of any criminal investigation in his regard and the use of evidence obtained in terminating his employment contract. It also concerns the failure to disclose to the applicant and his lawyer evidence against him and his conviction on the basis of such evidence. The case raises issues under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the facts of the case disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the proceedings as a whole fair, within the meaning of that provision, notably in view of the manner in which evidence (witnesses, secret materials, etc.) has been examined and of the reasons given by the courts in their judgments (see, for instance, Regner v.   he   Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, §§ 146-162, 19 September 2017)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to protection of his right to “private life” and “correspondence”, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, by the interception and recording of his phone calls? If so, have the guarantees provided for in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention been observed, notably in respect of the lawfulness of the measure and the safeguards against abuse (see, for instance, Iordachi and   Others v. Moldova , no. 25198/02, § 29-54, 10 February 2009)?