5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sofia. 6.  In 1995 the applicant was appointed as an inspector at the National Security Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In 2002 he was transferred to the Ministry’s National Security Directorate (the Ministry’s internal structure had been altered in 1997). At that time he had the rank of major. His duties included counter‑intelligence, the recruitment and managing of secret agents, the gathering and dissemination of information from secret sources, secret surveillance, etc. 7.  In November 2002 a proposal was made for the applicant’s disciplinary dismissal. The proposal was prompted by an internal investigation which found indications that the applicant had engaged, aside from his duties at the Ministry, in fish farming, and that he had sought to resolve disputes with the persons employed by him by threatening them with his position. It was felt that these activities were incompatible with the duties of an officer of the National Security Directorate and tarnished the reputation of the service. 8.  The proposal was not upheld due to the lack of sufficient evidence. 9.  On 6 March 2003 the Director of the National Security Directorate sent a letter to the head of the Ministry’s Psychology Institute (see paragraph 33 below). He referred in detail to the above facts and suggested that the applicant be subjected to psychological assessment on the basis of Instruction no. I‑37 (see paragraph 32 below). 10.  On 19 March 2003 the Director of the National Security Directorate ordered the applicant to present himself for assessment at the Ministry’s Psychology Institute. 11.  The applicant underwent a psychological assessment on 16 April 2003. It consisted of a psychological test, an interview and a polygraph test. 12.  The results of the assessment were available on 9 May 2003. The psychologist who had carried it out described the results of his observations and of the polygraph test, and expressed the opinion that the applicant was mentally unfit to work at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The document was classified and the applicant was not allowed to see it. 13.  On 5 June 2003 the Director of the National Security Directorate proposed to the Minister of Internal Affairs to dismiss the applicant from his post under section 253(1)(5) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 1997 and regulation 251(1)(6) of the Act’s implementing regulations (see paragraphs 30 and 31 below). In his proposal he described in detail the attempt to dismiss the applicant on disciplinary grounds and the results of the psychological assessment. The applicant was allowed to have sight of the proposal the same day. 14.  In an order of 27 June 2003 the Minister of Internal Affairs dismissed the applicant by reference to the legal provisions mentioned in the proposal. 15.  The applicant was acquainted with the order on 13 August 2003 and noted his disagreement with the grounds for issuing it. 16.  On 26 August 2003 the applicant sought judicial review of the Minister’s order. He argued, inter alia, that it had not been duly reasoned and that the psychological assessment on the basis of which it had been issued had not been objective. 17.  In the course of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court the Ministry presented a copy of the applicant’s psychological assessment. The proceedings as a whole were then classified, apparently because the case file contained a classified document. 18.  The applicant was initially represented by two lawyers. The first of them withdrew from the proceedings because he could not obtain the requisite security clearance to be able to have access to the documents in the case file. The second also withdrew because she did not have enough legal experience to be granted rights of audience before the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant accordingly retained another counsel who had the requisite experience and security clearance. 19.  In her written pleadings counsel for the Ministry submitted, inter alia, that after the applicant had been found mentally unfit for work, under section 253(1)(5) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 1997 (see paragraph 30 below), the Minister had been bound to dismiss him from his post. 20.  A three‑member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court heard the case on 4 October 2004. Counsel for the applicant argued, inter alia, that the psychological assessment had not been correctly carried out and that its results could not be trusted. Counsel for the Ministry argued, inter alia, that the assessment could not be subjected to judicial scrutiny. 21.  In a judgment of 11 October 2004 (реш. № 50 от 11 октомври 2004 г. по адм. д. № С‑65/2003 г., ВАС, V о.), the three‑member panel rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no breaches of the rules of procedure had occurred in the course of the dismissal procedure. It went on to say that it was not competent to review the results of the psychological assessment carried out by the Ministry’s Psychology Institute. Under the terms of regulation 251(1)(6) of the implementing regulations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 1997 (see paragraph 31 below), such assessments amounted to incontrovertible proof of unfitness for work at the Ministry, and the Ministry’s Psychology Institute was the only body competent to determine that issue. The panel also found no indication that the dismissal order was not in line with the purpose of the law. 22.  The applicant appealed on points of law. He challenged, inter alia, the psychological assessment procedure and the independence of the experts who had carried it out. He also contested the three‑member panel’s ruling that the Ministry’s Psychology Institute was the only body competent to carry out such an examination and that the court could not scrutinise the correctness of the Institute’s opinion. In an additional memorial filed on 9 March 2005 he pointed out that in a judgment of 8 February 2005 (see paragraph 35 below) another panel of the Supreme Administrative Court had stated that the assessment of mental fitness for work at the Ministry should be amenable to judicial scrutiny. 23.  In a final judgment of 17 May 2005 (реш. № 12 от 17 май 2005 г. по адм. д. № С‑4/2005 г., ВАС, петчл. с‑в), a five‑member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that the psychological assessment procedure had been duly followed, and that the three‑member panel had been correct to find that it could not scrutinise the assessment. Its judgment had been given before the judgment of 8 February 2005 which had partly struck down regulation 251(1)(6) of the implementing regulations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 1997 (see paragraph 35 below) and had been based on the wording of that regulation in force before the judgment of 8 February 2005. 24.  As the proceedings were classified, the applicant could not obtain copies of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgments. On 5 December 2005 he asked the court to issue certificates containing the judgments’ operative provisions and indications as to the subject matter of the case. The president of the five‑member panel which had dealt with the case acceded to the request, and on 7 December 2005 the applicant was issued two certificates, one in relation to the three‑member panel’s judgment and another in relation to the five‑member panel’s judgment. 25.  In the meantime, on 7 November 2005 the applicant requested the re‑opening of the proceedings. 26.  In a judgment of 4 April 2006 (реш. № Я‑63 от 4 април 2006 г. по адм. д. № С‑108/2005 г., ВАС, петчл. с‑в) the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the request. 27.  On 30 August 2006 a commission appointed by the president of the Supreme Administrative Court declassified the minutes of the hearings before the three‑member and five‑member panels, as well as their judgments. It did so by reference to regulation 50(3)(2) of the Regulations for the implementation of the Protection of Classified Information Act 2002, which provides that the level of classification must be changed if it has been set incorrectly.