CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 novembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 4 November 2020 Published on 23 November 2020   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 31578/10 and 6059/11 Aleksandr Vladimirovich VISLOBOKOV against Russia and Galina Olegovna GORDON against Russia lodged on 5 May 2010 and 5 January 2011 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern covert interception of telephone communications in the context of criminal proceedings against the first applicant. The first applicant was not given a copy of the interception authorisation and did not therefore know which telephone numbers had been tapped and for how long. The second applicant, his mother, lived together with him. They shared several telephone numbers, both landline and mobile, all of which were registered as belonging to the second applicant. The second applicant therefore suspected that her conversations were also intercepted.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the second applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34? In particular, was there “a reasonable likelihood” that her conversations had been tapped (compare Halford v. the United Kingdom , 25 June 1997, §§ 47 and 48, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ III, and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 167, ECHR 2015, with further references)?   2.     Did the interception of the applicants’ telephone communications violate their right to respect for their private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention (see Zubkov and Others v. Russia , nos.   29431/05 and 2 others, §§ 129-32, 7 November 2017)?