CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 2024

.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 } Published on 16 September 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 25401/23 Ana ROMANCHENKO against Georgia lodged on 16 June 2023 communicated on 28 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the interception and recording of telephone communications of the applicant, a practising lawyer, and a member of the Georgian Bar Association. The covert investigative measure, which had been authorised by the Tbilisi City Court on 14 January 2021, took place between 14 January and 13 February 2021. On 11 January 2022 the Tbilisi City Court, acting at the request of the prosecutor’s office, suspended the time-limit for notifying the applicant about the interception of her telephone conversations. The applicant was eventually informed of the covert investigative measure on 30 January 2023. She filed an appeal alleging that the interception and recording of her telephone communications had been unlawful and disproportionate, and that her private conversations and those covered by legal professional privilege had not been destroyed. Her appeal was rejected by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 20 February 2023. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant   exhausted   all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, in respect of each of her complaints lodged with the Court under Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and correspondence within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? Were there adequate, effective and sufficient safeguards against abuse, arbitrariness and breaches of legal professional privilege? In this connection, did the Georgian law lay down procedures enabling the applicant to challenge the interception, recording and storage of communications involving confidential private-life and client-lawyer information?