Communicated on 24 February 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 66640/12 Ilie STANA against Romania lodged on 8 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ilie Stana , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Timi ÅŸ oara .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 20 February 2003 the applicant, a bank director at that time, was placed on pre-trial detention by the Bucharest Anti-Corruption Department of the Prosecutor ’ s Office on a charge of having taken bribe in order to favourably influence the acceptance of a loan requested by M.G.

By a judgment with final effect issued on 13 April 2012 the High Court of Cassation and Justice convicted the applicant for taking bribe. Among the evidence which lead to his conviction was the transcript of a phone conversation the applicant had with M.G. on 16 September 2002.

The conversation had been intercepted on the basis of a warrant issued by the prosecutor pursuant to the provisions of Law No. 51/1991 on national security for a period between 13 August and 12 November 2002.

The applicant complained before the domestic courts about the lawfulness of the interception of his phone conversation as well as about the accuracy of its transcript. He alleged t hat the Court had held that Law No. 51/1991 did not meet the guarantees required under Article 8 of the Convention. However, the High Court of Cassation and Justice only replied that the impugned interception was lawful and within the scope of the Law No. 51/1991.

B. Relevant domestic law

The legislation in force at the relevant time concerning telephone tapping is described in Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no. 2) (no. 71525/01, §§ 39 ‑ 46, 26 April 2007).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the interception of his phone conversation was unlawful, in violation of his right to private life.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in so far as the interception of his phone conversation by the prosecutor is concerned (see Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no. 2) , no. 71525/01, 26 April 2007)?