CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2019
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-199535
- Date
- 25 novembre 2019
- Publication
- 25 novembre 2019
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 25 November 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 71460/11 Khadzhimurad Labazanovich GUSENOV against Russia lodged on 1 November 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns interception of the applicant’s telephone communications in the framework of a criminal investigation against him and his detention pending trial. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the length of the appeal proceedings against the detention order of 29 August 2010 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention in respect of his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the supervisory-review complaint against the interception authorisation an effective remedy to be taken into account for the calculation of the six-month time-limit?   3.     Did the interception of the applicant’s telephone conversations violate his right to respect for his private life and correspondence (see Moskalev v.   Russia , no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia , no. 59589/10, 7 November 2017)?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 25 novembre 2019
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-199535
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel