CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 2 November 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 37832/22 Nika KHARAZISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 26 July 2022 communicated on 11 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the interception of telephone conversations of the applicant between 9 November and 9 December 2020 in the framework of criminal proceedings initiated into the activities of one of the clients of his wife (a practising lawyer) by the Ministry of Finance on 3 November 2020 (see in this connection Statement of Facts in the case of Romanchenko v.   Georgia, no. 33067/22, communicated on 30 August 2022). The interception was authorised by the Tbilisi City Court on 7 November 2020 on the basis of the so-called operational information. When informed in November 2021, 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 27 January 2022. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the interception of the applicant’s telephone conversations ordered by the Tbilisi City Court on 7 November 2020 violate his right to respect for his private life and/or correspondence (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no.   47143/06, ECHR 2015)? In particular, did the Tbilisi City 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 impugned measure was proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued (see Moskalev v. Russia , no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017)?