CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17 November 2020 Published on 7 December 2020     FIRST SECTION Application no. 18593/19 Juraj PLECHLO against Slovakia lodged on 2 April 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Raising issues under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, the application concerns eavesdropping of the applicant’s telephone communication, the production, continued existence and use of various material originating from that eavesdropping (audio recording, verbatim transcript and analytical descriptive transcript) and the alleged lack of safeguards and effective remedies in that respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In connection with eavesdropping of the applicant’s telephone communication and the production, continued existence and use of various material originating from that eavesdropping, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life or 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?   Did the applicable domestic law provide a measure of legal protection against arbitrary interference (see, for example, Segerstedt-Wiberg and   Others v. Sweden , no. 62332/00, § 76, ECHR 2006 VII, with further references)?   Did the applicant have available a system of “effective control” against abuse (see, for example, Lambert v. France , 24 August 1998, §34, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ V)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Michalák v. Slovakia , no. 30157/03, §   212-219, 8 February 2011, with further references)?