Communicated on 20 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 55091/15 Māris RJABIŅINS and Others against Latvia lodged on 30 October 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the interception of the applicants ’ telephone communication in connection with criminal proceedings. The first applicant was questioned as a witness. On 7 September 2014 the second and the third applicant were detained for some ten hours on suspicion of having committed a crime, but on 20 February 2015 the criminal proceedings against them were discontinued for lack of evidence. On 19 June 2015 the prosecution referred the criminal case for trial in relation to other suspects. On the same date, the applicants ’ lawyer (who was also defence counsel for other suspects) received the criminal case material and discovered that the applicants ’ telephone communications had been intercepted on the basis of a decision of 28 October 2014 by an investigating judge of the Riga City Ziemeļu District Court. On various dates the applicants lodged complaints with the President of that court against the decision. Their complaints were not accepted as the criminal case had already been referred for trial and, accordingly, those complaints could not be reviewed by the President of that court.

The applicants complain under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their private life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the interception of their telephone communications in the period from 28 October to 26 November 2014?

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

3. Did the domestic system of secret surveillance, as applied by the domestic authorities in the present case, afford adequate and effective safeguards against abuse?

4. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?