CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 avril 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 3 April 2020 Published on 25 May 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40825/15 Ljubiša ALEKSIĆ against Serbia lodged on 31 July 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the interception and reading of the applicant’s emails by his public employer, the Serbian Statistics Office ( Republički zavod za statistitku ). These emails were sent from the applicant’s official account and contained information regarding his personal and his professional circumstances, the latter including comments as to the state of affairs in the office. The emails were subsequently also used as evidence in a civil defamation suit brought against the applicant by one of his colleagues. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was a separate civil suit for damages against his employer an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention? Also, did the applicant invoke before the Constitutional Court, at least in substance, the right under Article 10 of the Convention on which he now wishes to rely before the Court?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life or his 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 (see, mutatis mutandis , Copland v. the United Kingdom , no. 62617/00, §§ 41-49, ECHR 2007 ‑ I, and Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, §§ 119-123, 5 September 2017 (extracts)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and/or ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?