CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 octobre 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 16 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 58032/16 Tivadar HÜTTL against Hungary lodged on 29 September 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a lawyer often working for a non-governmental organisation active in defending civil liberties, had a phone conversation with a Member of European Parliament (MEP) on 23 September 2015. After a minute, the line was interrupted. Subsequently, the MEP posted on social media that once the line had been interrupted, he heard back on the phone fragments of the preceding conversation. The applicant thought that his phone was being tapped and the conversation recorded. He enquired with three competent ministries to find out if he was being secretly surveyed. All the three replied that the applicant was not subjected to unlawful secret surveillance. The applicant then complained to Parliament’s National Security Commission which decided not to launch any further investigation. He complains under Article 8 about potential secret surveillance and the lack of remedial measures. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Does the possibility that the applicant could be subjected to secret surveillance without external/judicial control represent an unjustified/disproportionate potential interference with his rights under Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis , Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary , no. 37138/14, §§   52 to 89, 12 January 2016)?