CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 2022

.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 } Published on 12 December 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 74785/14 Sergiy Mykolayovych VOLKOV against Ukraine lodged on 20 November 2014 communicated on 22 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the applicant’s complaints that his conversations were recorded without a court authorisation and the results were used as evidence against him, in alleged breach of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. The applicant, at the time a district prosecutor, was convicted of bribery for having taken money from Mr and Mrs R. The applicant was investigating a criminal case against Mr R. on suspicion of embezzlement. According to the charges, the money was handed over in exchange of a favourable treatment of Mr R.’s criminal case. Mr and Mrs R. complained to the Security Service that the applicant was extorting a bribe from them and were provided with recording equipment in order to document the bribe-giving. Throughout the criminal proceedings the applicant stated that, even though he had indeed received the money from Mrs R., it had been a voluntary donation for the renovation of the premises of his district prosecutor’s office and not for him personally. Therefore it could not constitute a bribe within the meaning of domestic criminal law (even though it could constitute a lesser, administrative, corruption offence). In convicting him the courts relied on the testimony of Mr and Mrs R., recordings made by Mr and Ms R. of their interactions with the applicant, and other evidence. The Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on 12 June 2014. Before the trial court and in his appeals the applicant alleged that the recordings had been conducted without an authorisation from a court, in breach of domestic law, and asked to be provided with a copy of any such order if it had been issued. The courts responded in general terms that the relevant undercover operations had been lawful. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, under paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the covert recording of his conversations? If so, did that interference comply with the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, on account notably of the domestic courts’ reliance on the recordings of the applicant’s conversations allegedly obtained unlawfully?