CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s25D4CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 13003/04, 43826/05 and 837/06 Gabriel CATALAN against Romania lodged on 29 December 2003, 16 November and 23 December 2005     The facts and complaints in these applications have been summarised in the Court’s decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC.     QUESTIONS   1.     Did the applicant’s dismissal from work, which was based on the fact that he disclosed to the press information to which he had gained access as a researcher before becoming a public servant, amount to a violation of his right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (application no.   13003/04)?   The parties are invited to provide information concerning the date on which the final decision of 27 June 2003 was drafted and became available to the applicant.   2.     Did the dismissal of the applicant’s request to the Romanian Broadcasting Company for access to information amount to a violation of his right to information, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (application no.   43826/05)?   The Government are invited to provide an original copy of the transcript of the television programme “Scurt pe doi”, broadcast on 29 March 2001 on the state television channel.   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil   claims, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in the procedure concerning the complaint lodged against the director of the SRI, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the applicant’s requests for evidence (application no. 837/06)?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, and more specifically with his right to a good reputation within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the statements made by the head of the Romanian Intelligence Service during the television programme on 29 March 2001 and the rejection of the applicant’s complaint in this respect (application no. 837/06)?