ROMANCHENKO AND KHARAZISHVILI v. GEORGIA - 33067/22 (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Fourth Section) [2025] ECHR 49 (18 February 2025)

ROMANCHENKO AND KHARAZISHVILI v. GEORGIA - 33067/22 (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Fourth Section) [2025] ECHR 49 (18 February 2025)

The procedure for authorising covert interception did not effectively guarantee necessity and proportionality, lacked relevant and sufficient reasons, and failed to consider lawyer-client privilege, resulting in a violation of Article 8.

Citation
[2025] ECHR 49
Parties
Applicant: Ana Romanchenko; Applicant: Nika Kharazishvili; Respondent: Georgia
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 8 found in respect of both applicants.
Legal Topics
Interception of Communications, Legal Professional Privilege, Judicial Oversight, Necessity and Proportionality, Right to Private Life, Right to Correspondence
Human Rights Criminal Law Data Protection Interception of Communications Legal Professional Privilege Judicial Oversight Necessity and Proportionality Right to Private Life +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ana Romanchenko

Applicant

Nika Kharazishvili

Applicant

Georgia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interception and recording of applicants' telephone communications violated Article 8 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether domestic law and judicial procedure provided adequate safeguards against abuse
  3. 3 Whether lawyer-client privilege was sufficiently protected

Ratio Decidendi

The procedure for authorising covert interception did not effectively guarantee necessity and proportionality, lacked relevant and sufficient reasons, and failed to consider lawyer-client privilege, resulting in a violation of Article 8.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 8 found in respect of both applicants.

Orders

  • Applications joined and declared admissible.
  • Respondent State to pay EUR 1,500 each to applicants for non-pecuniary damage.