CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 1 November 2011 and 14 October 2014   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 35252/08 CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA against Sweden lodged on 14 July 2008     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTIONS     1.     Assuming that the applicant firm can claim to be a victim in the present case, has there been an interference with its rights under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, and, if so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?               In particular, did such secret surveillance measures comply with the requirements of minimum legislative safeguards and of supervision of the regime as set out in the Court’s case-law (see, for instance, Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 95, ECHR 2006-XI, and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, §§ 159-169, judgment of 18 May 2010) during each of the three time-periods: a) before 1 January 2009, b) from 1 January to 30 November 2009, and c) as from 1   December 2009?   2.     Have the applicant’s concerns about secret surveillance measures being applied to it required that it has access to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention? If so, has the applicant had an effective remedy at its disposal?