CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 9 July 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 25626/10 Sergey Viktorovich RASPOPIN against Russia lodged on 1 April 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for drug trafficking. The conviction judgment relied, in particular, on statements by his co ‑ accused U. and on audio recordings of telephone conversations between the applicant and U. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Given that the defence was not allowed to ask certain questions to U., was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Pichugin v. Russia , no. 38623/03, §§ 195-205, 23 October 2012)?   2.     Did the interception of the applicant’s telephone conversations violate his right to respect for his private life and correspondence (see Zubkov and   Others v. Russia , nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, 7 November 2017)? Did Russian legislation regulate in detail the case of persons whose telephone conversations were intercepted accidentally because they participated in a conversation with a person whose telephone was lawfully tapped by the authorities (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 61, ECHR 2000 ‑ II; Matheron v. France , no. 57752/00, §§ 29-44, 29 March 2005; Pruteanu v. Romania , no. 30181/05, §§ 44-45 and 50-58, 3 February 2015; and Versini-Campinchi and Crasnianski v. France , no. 49176/11, §§   54-55 and 62-74, 16 June 2016)?