6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Shumen. 7.  On 21 June 2001 the applicant requested the president of the Shumen Regional Court to inform him in writing whether that court had issued warrants authorising interception of his communications. Later on he specified that his request did not relate to current interception; he merely wished to know whether any such warrants had been issued for past periods. He explained that he needed that information to be able to decide whether or not to bring a tort claim against the authorities. 8.  On 23 October 2001 the president of the Shumen Regional Court instructed the applicant to specify the exact period in respect of which he sought information, and referred him to the Minister of Internal Affairs. 9.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant wrote to the Minister, but did not receive a reply. 10.  He then applied again to the president of the Shumen Regional Court, reiterating his request for information and specifying that it related to the period between 1 January 1996 and 1 November 2001. The president of the court wrote on the request “There has been an answer.” 11.  The applicant sought judicial review of what he saw as a tacit refusal to provide him the requested information. On 21 July 2003 the Varna Regional Court, to which the case had been transferred, dismissed the applicant’s legal challenge, finding that the information sought by him was classified. 12.  On an appeal by the applicant, in a final judgment of 12 February 2004 (реш. № 1195 от 12 февруари 2004 г. по адм. д. № 9881/2003 г., ВАС, V о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It started by observing that it had to review the tacit refusal’s lawfulness by reference to the factual and legal grounds for the applicant’s request and the presumed reasons for its rejection. It went on to say that although the Constitution enshrined the right to obtain information from a State authority, that right was subject to limitations when, for instance, the information was classified. It was apparent from the relevant provisions of the Special Surveillance Means Act 1997 (see paragraphs 23‑24 below) that information relating to secret surveillance was classified. The refusal to provide such information was therefore compatible with the Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant’s argument that the refusal had been in breach of the legislation on protection of personal data was unavailing, because material gathered through secret surveillance fell outside that legislation’s ambit, as did information on whether such surveillance had been authorised. The applicant’s further arguments that the information that he sought was not a State or official secret within the meaning of the Protection of Classified Information Act 2002 and could be divulged because of the expiry of the two‑year time‑limit for its remaining classified were likewise unavailing, because that Act did not apply retrospectively. 13.  In the meantime, on 30 May 2003 the applicant once more requested the president of the Shumen Regional Court to inform him whether any intercept warrants against him had been issued between 1 November 2001 and 29 May 2003. The court’s president declined to consider the request pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings outlined in paragraphs 11‑12 above. 14.  The applicant sought judicial review of what he saw as a tacit refusal to provide him the requested information. On 28 October 2003 the Varna Regional Court dismissed his legal challenge, finding that the information sought by him was classified. 15.  On an appeal by the applicant, in a final judgment of 15 May 2004 (реш. № 4408 от 15 май 2004 г. по адм. д. № 996/2004 г., ВАС, V о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It found that the applicant’s request had rightly been rejected, because information about secret surveillance was classified. Intelligence obtained pursuant to an intercept warrant, as well as the warrant itself, were also classified. The court went on to say that the fact that secret surveillance could be authorised solely by the presidents of the regional courts was sufficient to ensure independent judicial scrutiny of the executive’s actions and provided a sufficient safeguard against undue interferences with individual rights. The court also held that the refusal to provide the information sought by the applicant had not been in breach of his rights under Article 10 of the Convention, because the second paragraph of that Article allowed limitations on the rights enshrined in its first paragraph. The interests set out in the second paragraph enjoyed a higher degree of protection than the right to obtain and impart information, and their protection justified certain curtailment of individual rights. 16.  On 4 February 2008 the applicant again requested the president of the Shumen Regional Court to inform him whether he had been subjected to secret surveillance between 1 January 1996 and 3 February 2008. On 6 February 2008 the court’s president replied that the information that the applicant was seeking was classified. 17.  The applicant sought judicial review. All judges in the Shumen Administrative Court withdrew from taking part in the case, and it was transferred to the Razgrad Administrative Court. 18.  On 24 September 2008 the Razgrad Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s legal challenge, finding that information relating to the use of special means of surveillance and intelligence obtained through such means was classified and fell outside the ambit of the legislation on access to public information. Moreover, under section 33 of the Special Surveillance Means Act 1997 (see paragraph 24 below), any person who had come across information about the use of special means of surveillance under the conditions and according to the manner set out in the Act, or intelligence obtained thereby, was under a duty not to disclose it. The court went on to say that the refusal to provide the information sought by the applicant had not been in breach of his rights under Articles 8 or 10 of the Convention, because the second paragraphs of those Articles allowed limitations on the rights enshrined in their first paragraphs. The interests set out in the second paragraphs enjoyed a higher degree of protection than the right to obtain and impart information, and their protection justified the curtailment of individual rights. The fact that the Special Surveillance Means Act 1997 required judicial authorisation of secret surveillance ensured independent scrutiny of the executive and was a sufficient safeguard against unjustified encroachments on individual rights. 19.  On an appeal by the applicant, in a final judgment of 15 July 2009 (реш. № 9720 от 15 юли 2009 г. по адм. д. № 15505/2008 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment, saying that it fully agreed with its reasoning. The information requested by the applicant was classified. The refusal to provide it to him had therefore been fully justified. It had not given rise to a breach of the Convention, because the interests set out in Article 10 § 2 enjoyed a higher degree of protection than the right to obtain and impart information, and their protection justified the curtailment of individual rights. 20.  The Government produced a letter dated 28 April 2009 from the Director of the National Security Agency, an entity created in 2008. The letter, in response to a query by the Government, said that the Agency had no information showing that the applicant had been subjected to secret surveillance between 1 January 1996 and 1 November 2001. 21.  The Government also produced a letter dated 8 April 2009 from the president of the Shumen Regional Court in which, in response to a query by the Government, she said that the information whether the court had been requested to grant any judicial authorisations for secret surveillance of the applicant between 1 January 1996 and 1 November 2001 was classified. 22.  In 2002 the applicant complained to the Varna Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office about the actions of certain police officers in relation to his earlier placement in a psychiatric hospital. That Office opened an inquiry into the matter. On 22 April 2004 the applicant asked it to provide him with copies of the materials in the file. A prosecutor of that Office refused. The applicant reiterated his request before the Military Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, apparently to no avail.