5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Katowice. 6.  On 11 April 1997 the parliament passed the Law on disclosing work for or service in the State's security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne; “the 1997 Lustration Act”). It entered into force on 3 August 1997. Persons falling under the provisions of the 1997 Lustration Act, i.e. candidates or holders of public office such as ministers and members of parliament, were required to declare whether or not they had worked for or collaborated with the security services during the communist regime. The provisions of the Act extended to, inter alia, judges, prosecutors and advocates. 7.  In December 1998 the applicant, who was an advocate, declared that he had not collaborated with the communist-era security services. 8.  On 30 March 2004 the Commissioner of Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) informed the applicant that he had doubts as to the truthfulness of his lustration declaration and invited him for an interview on 19 April 2004. 9.  On 12 May 2004 the Commissioner dismissed the applicant's request for access to the case file. 10.  On 8 December 2004 the Commissioner applied to the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) to institute lustration proceedings against the applicant on the grounds that he had lied in his lustration declaration by denying that he had collaborated with the secret services. 11.  On 20 December 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided to allow the Commissioner's request and instituted lustration proceedings against the applicant. The applicant was informed that he could consult the case file in the secret registry of the Court of Appeal. 12.  On 9 March 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that between 1987 and 1989 the applicant had been an intentional and secret collaborator with the Security Service and had therefore submitted an untrue lustration declaration. 13.  The applicant lodged an appeal in which he maintained, in particular, that the lustration proceedings had been in breach of the Resolution 1096 (1996) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He also complained that the Commissioner had applied to the court to institute the lustration proceedings after the expiry of the time-limit of six months, calculated from the date he had notified the applicant about his doubts regarding the truthfulness of his declaration. 14.  On 10 January 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, upheld the impugned judgment. In particular the court established that the time-limit had been of a non‑binding nature and its expiry had not precluded the institution of the proceedings. 15.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment. On 22 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed his cassation appeal. 16.  The applicant was removed from the Bar Association with the result that he is unable to practise as an advocate for a period of ten years in application of the 1997 Lustration Act.