CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 January 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11101/21 P.R. against Slovenia lodged on 17 February 2021 communicated on 16 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, former ambassador, instituted civil proceedings seeking compensation for an unlawful search of his residence in Spain, carried out by a Slovenian official in 2009. The Supreme Court acknowledged that, unlike the search of official premises, the search of private premises, which had been part of his official residence, had been in breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home. However, it concluded that the applicant had not incurred any damage because of the violation of his privacy because the distress he suffered had been related to his mental illness and to the search as such and not distinctively to the unlawful part of the search. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with respect to the search of his residence in Spain. He furthermore complains of a breach of Articles 6 and 13, also in conjunction with Article   14, because the Supreme Court considered that he could have not suffered any damage on account of the unlawful search.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, with respect to the search of his private premises of his official residence in 2009? 2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his above complaint under Article 8 as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 3.     Were the reasons given by the domestic courts for the dismissal of the applicant’s compensation claim compatible with the principles enshrined in Article 8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, which prohibits discrimination on account of an individual’s health status (see Cînța v. Romania , no. 3891/19, § 66, 18 February 2020 and the case ‑ law cited therein).