CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 octobre 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 30 October 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 5855/23 Giorgi MAMALADZE against Georgia lodged on 19 December 2021 communicated on 10 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that his telephone conversations with his representative were intercepted while proceedings in respect of his substantive complaints under the Convention (see Mamaladze v.   Georgia , no.   9487/19, 3   November 2022) were pending before the Court. The interception was, according to the applicant, demonstrated by the leak, in the domestic media, of transcripts of some of their telephone conversations. A criminal investigation was opened into the matter and the applicant was granted the procedural status of a victim. The investigation is ongoing. The applicant relied on Article   34 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article   34 of the Convention? Namely, could the applicant have held a genuine belief on reasonable grounds that his conversations with his representative were being listened to (see, mutatis mutandis , Cebotari v. Moldova , no. 35615/06, §   60, 13   November 2007)?