CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 2023

.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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 2 October 2023   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 11514/23 and 11543/23 Adham A.H. ABURAMADAN against Cyprus and Rudolf DYDI against Cyprus lodged on 9 March 2023 communicated on 12 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the fairness of a criminal trial in which evidence against the defendants included call-data records shared by their phone companies with the police allegedly in breach of privacy laws. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the evidence against the applicants obtained in violation of Article   8 of the Convention, in particular in view of the invalidation by the Supreme Court of the Law on the Retention of Telecommunications Data for the Purpose of Investigating Serious Crimes   (183(I)/2007) (see Hadjiioannou and Others , αρ.   97/2018, 27   October 2021, ECLI:CY:AD:2021:D487)?   2.     If the applicants’ call-data records had been obtained in violation of Article   8, did they have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, §   138 et seq., 17 October 2019)?