CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 2022

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; 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 19 September 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33067/22 Ana ROMANCHENKO against Georgia lodged on 29 June 2022 communicated on 30 August 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the interception of telephone communications of the applicant, a practising lawyer, and a member of the Georgian Bar Association. All of her telephone communications in the period between 10   November and 9 December 2020, including those covered by legal professional privilege, were intercepted in the framework of criminal proceedings initiated into the activities of one of her clients by the Ministry of Finance on 3 November 2020. The interception was authorised by the Tbilisi City Court on 7 November 2020. When informed, the applicant challenged the interception, arguing that the measure had been unlawful and disproportionate. The complaint was rejected by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 29 December 2021. As far as the applicant’s status was concerned, the appeal court concluded that practicing lawyers were not immune from being subjected to secret surveillance measures.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and/or correspondence within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law (referring both to the existence of legal basis as well as to the quality of law) and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? In particular, were there adequate, effective and sufficient safeguards against abuse, arbitrariness and breaches of   legal professional privilege? (See Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria , no. 65755/01, 22 May 2008; Robathin v. Austria , no. 30457/06, 3 July 2012; Zubkov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, 7 November 2017; Moskalev v. Russia , no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017; and Kruglov and Others v. Russia , nos.   11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020).