CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2020

.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 } Communicated on 29 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 52808/09 Sergey Vladimirovich SOROKIN against Russia lodged on 2 September 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist who interviewed a high ranking police officer, L., and published the interview on his news site. The case concerns the subsequent search of the applicant’s home to discover evidence against L., who became suspected of having revealed State secret information during that interview. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   3. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the search warrant in respect of his home in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected?   Was the exclusion of the public in the present case compatible with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?