CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 November 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 14829/12 Maksim Anatolyevich PETLIN against Russia lodged on 27 February 2012 communicated on 19 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns an allegedly disproportionate interference with the right to respect for the applicant’s private life on account of an interception of his telephone conversations ordered on 16 November 2010 on the ground that being a head of the regional branch of a political party “Yabloko” and after having participated in protest actions and criticised the Government, he could have publicly called for extremist activities. The applicant found out about the taping of his phone on 9 December 2011 in the context of criminal proceedings initiated against him on charges of bribery where the domestic courts referred to the intercepted materials in order to secure his conviction. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the interception of the applicant’s telephone conversations ordered by the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court on 16 November 2010 violate his right to respect for his private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular,   did the Regional Court verify whether there was a “reasonable suspicion” against the applicant and apply the test of “necessity in a democratic society”, and in particular assess whether the surveillance measures were proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued (see Moskalev v. Russia , no.   44045/05, §§ 41-44, 7   November 2017)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia , no. 59589/10, §§ 25-36, 7   November 2017)?