CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } Communicated on 9 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31091/16 Klaudia CSIKÓS against Hungary lodged on 17 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist. On 17 November 2015 she received a phone call from a police officer concerning a high-profile murder case. She received further calls from him concerning the development of the case; and she published an article the following day. Subsequently the police officer was moved to another post. The applicant filed a criminal report against the Pest County Regional Police Department for abuse of official power, complaining that her phone conversations had been tapped. Her complaint was dismissed on 1   February 2016. At the same time criminal proceedings were initiated against the police officer for having shared secret information with the applicant, the tapped phone conversations apparently being the evidence. It was in these proceedings that on 11 May 2016 the applicant found out about the phone-tapping. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and correspondence, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant, a journalist, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention, given that her phone had been tapped in order to track down her police sources? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Articles 8 and 10, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?