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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 September 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26487/23 Zviad KORIDZE against Georgia lodged on 29 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 journalist, who, at the material time, was the head of the Presidential Clemency Commission. In particular, on 1   February 2022 the applicant learnt from a TV report that back in 2017 his telephone communications had been intercepted and recorded. In reply to his inquiry, the prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that his telephone calls had been intercepted and recorded within the context of criminal proceedings that had been initiated on 21 August 2017 into the criminal offence of aggravated fraud. He was informed that the intercepted material had been included as evidence in the relevant criminal case file against third persons and that the applicant had been duly notified in this respect. On 15 February 2022 the applicant filed a complaint with the Personal Data Protection Service (“PDPS”) alleging various breaches of the rules concerning interception, recording, notification, storage, and destruction of the intercepted material. The applicant alleged, among other things, that he had never been notified of his right to challenge as unlawful the court order authorising the interception of his telephone communications; that his request to have access to the relevant case materials had been rejected; and that the intercepted private communications, not related to the ongoing criminal proceedings, had apparently not been destructed. He alleged a violation of his right to private life and correspondence and requested the PDPS to take adequate measures. In reply, on 9 March 2022 the PDPS stated that, according to the information obtained from the prosecutor’s office, on 8 October 2019 the applicant had been notified, via a telephone call from a prosecutor, about the covert investigative measure ordered with respect to him; he had, however, declined the offer of going to the prosecutor’s office in order to receive copies of the relevant case materials. The case file contained a record on the respective telephone conversation signed by the prosecutor. Having regard to the above mentioned record and in view of the fact that more than two months had elapsed since the applicant had been notified of the interception of his telephone conversations, the representative of the PDPS informed the applicant that his complaint could no longer be examined. As far as the destruction of the intercepted material was concerned, the PDPS noted that this issue fell outside its mandate. On 31 March 2022 the applicant requested the prosecutor’s office to provide him with a copy of the court order authorising the interception and recording of his telephone communications along with related case materials, including a copy of the decision concerning the destruction, if any, of the intercepted material. After several reiterated requests, on 28 February 2023 the applicant was informed that his request could not be met since the relevant material, as a part of a criminal case, had been forwarded to a court. In his several subsequent complaints with the General Prosecutor’s Office the applicant reiterated his various grievances concerning the manner his telephone communications had been intercepted and recorded, and requested the initiation of disciplinary and/or criminal proceedings. As it appears from the case file, all of his requests were refused. The internal inquiry conducted within the prosecutor’s office had not revealed any disciplinary offences on the part of the public officials involved. The applicant complains under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and 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 of the Convention? Did the domestic system of covert surveillance, as applied by the domestic authorities in the present case, afford adequate and effective safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, ECHR 2015)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaints under Article   8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see ibid.; see also Drakšas v. Lithuania , no. 36662/04, 31 July 2012; and Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 70078/12, 11 January 2022)? If so, has the applicant exhausted those remedies?