CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } THIRD SECTION Application no. 24591/07 Dorinel Mihai MUCEA   against Romania lodged on 4 June 2007     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has the applicant exhausted the effective domestic remedies at his disposal, in so far as he complains that part of the prosecution file was made public and consequently his case was covered by the media?   2.     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 publication of extracts of the prosecution file and the subsequent media coverage of the case are concerned and in so far as his telephone conversations had been monitored for five hundred and twenty days by the Romanian Intelligence Service on the basis of Law no. 51/1991?