CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 avril 2013
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-120069
- Date
- 30 avril 2013
- Publication
- 30 avril 2013
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulAnalyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s35832052 { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION Application no. 15242/07 Violeta Liliana PRICOP and others against Romania lodged on 15 January 2007 The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the first four applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 88-93, 10   March   2009)? In particular, did the admission of the evidence obtained through the recordings of their telephone conversations comply with the guarantees of Article   6   §   1?   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case regarding the first four applicants in breach of “the reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the first four applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention as a result of the recordings of their telephone conversations? In particular, (a)   was the interception of the first four applicants’ conversations in accordance with law? (b)   was the relevant law foreseeable in its application?  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 30 avril 2013
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-120069
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel