CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 2021

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 26 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 77559/17 Boryslav Solomonovych ROZENBLAT against Ukraine lodged on 1 November 2017 communicated on 8 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged breaches of the applicant’s Convention rights in a covert investigation and the subsequent criminal proceedings instituted by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (hereinafter: “NABU”) into suspicion of unlawful amber mining in Ukraine, allegedly involving the applicant, at the time a Member of Parliament of Ukraine. The applicant alleges that between 29 July 2016 (when the covert operation was initiated) until 11 July 2017 (when the Parliament partially waived his immunity and allowed the bringing of criminal charges against him) he was – either directly or indirectly through his entourage (his bodyguard and lawyer) – subject to unlawful covert surveillance and audio and video recording by the NABU. He also alleges that on the basis of this investigation, and after the Parliament had partially waived his immunity, the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv arbitrarily applied the preventive measure prohibiting him to leave Kyiv and Zhytomyr without the permission of the investigator (detective), the prosecutor or the court, which adversely affected his private life (development of professional relations). The applicant also alleges that he did not have effective remedies for his complaints. He invokes Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective remedies for his specific complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, and, if so, did he properly exhaust those remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and/or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, as regards the taking of the covert investigative measures involving him in the period between 29 July 2016 (when the covert operation was initiated) until 11 July 2017 (when the Parliament partially waived his immunity)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? In particular, did the interference in question comply with the relevant law as regards the applicant’s status as Member of Parliament? Were the domestic authorities’ actions necessary, within the meaning of Article 8 § 2, having regard to the nature of the alleged offences and the nature of the impugned investigative measures? In this connection, have appropriate procedural safeguards been put in place for the application of the investigative measures in question?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life (development of professional relations) in connection with the decision of the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv applying the preventive measure prohibiting him to leave Kyiv and Zhytomyr without the permission of the investigator (detective), the prosecutor or the court?