CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 2021
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-213180
- Date
- 19 octobre 2021
- Publication
- 19 octobre 2021
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 } .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 8 November 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 20420/12 Vildar Khamitovich YAKUPOV against Russia lodged on 12 March 2012 communicated on 19 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE At the relevant time the applicant was an Islamic teacher in the Chelyabinsk region. A court ordered interception of his telephone conversations and searches on the applicant’s premises on the ground that he had been allegedly involved in extremist religious activities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the interception of the applicant’s telephone conversations violate his right to respect for his private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the Chelyabinsk Regional Court verify whether there was a “reasonable suspicion” against the applicant and apply the test of “necessity in a democratic society”, and in particular assess whether the surveillance measures taken in respect of the applicant were proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued (see Moskalev v. Russia , no.   44045/05, §§ 41-44, 7   November 2017)?   2.     In respect of the searches on the applicant’s premises , was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, what was the legal basis for that measure and was it proportionate to a legitimate aim (see Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, §§ 178-85, 20   September 2018)?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 19 octobre 2021
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-213180
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel