4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Burgas. 5.  At the relevant time the applicant was accused in a number of criminal proceedings concerning different offences and was convicted in at least two of them. 6.  On 11 October 1994 the applicant was brought to a police station in the town of Harmanli on suspicion of committing aggravated robbery in complicity with six other persons. Criminal proceedings in relation to that were opened on an unspecified date under case no. 40/95. 7.  In 12 October 1994 the applicant was charged with the above‑mentioned offence and was detained on remand. 8.  On 13 December 1994 he was also charged with hooliganism and unlawful possession of firearms. Those charges were amended on 30 December 1994. 9.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 1995 the case was brought before the Haskovo Regional Court. 10.  Between May 1995 and November 1997 at least ten hearings were held, nine of which were adjourned as some of the other accused or their counsel were not present. 11.  Between November 1997 and March 2000 no hearings appear to have been held, as the presiding judge was on sick leave. During that period the applicant sent at least seven requests to the Haskovo Regional Court, asking for a hearing to be scheduled, to no avail. 12.  The hearings were resumed in March 2000. Between that time and May 2005 the court held at least nineteen hearings, fourteen of which were adjourned: one at the applicant’s request, two because a judge was sick and the rest because of the absence of some of the other accused or their counsel. 13.  At the hearing of 20 September 2005 the lay judges in the panel hearing the case were replaced and the proceedings had to re‑start because the panel did not include reserve lay judges. 14.  Between September 2005 and December 2006 at least eight hearings were held, three of which were adjourned because some of the other accused, or their counsel, were absent. 15.  On 13 December 2006 a plea agreement was concluded and approved by the Haskovo Regional Court. The applicant pleaded guilty to aggravated armed robbery and possession of firearms. He was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. After combining this sentence with a sentence imposed in another set of proceedings (case no. 72/93), the court found that the applicant should serve a combined prison sentence of six years and six months, and concluded that the applicant had already served that sentence. 16.  On 12 October 1994 an investigator from the Haskovo regional investigation service detained the applicant on remand. 17.  On 30 December 1994 the applicant was released on bail and on 8 February 1995 was again detained on remand. 18.  On 26 April 1995 the applicant was sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment under case no. 72/93. He started serving that sentence. 19.  On several occasions in 1995, 1997 and 1998 the applicant requested that his detention on remand in connection with case no. 40/95 be replaced by bail. It is not clear how many of those requests were examined by the domestic courts, but on 28 October 1998 the Haskovo Regional Court granted one of them. 20.  On several occasions the applicant requested early release under case no. 72/93, but his requests were not granted. 21.  On 3 July 2000, having served his sentence under case no. 72/93 and paid the bail under case no. 40/95, the applicant was released. 22.  It appears that several prohibitions to leave the country were imposed on the applicant in connection with several sets of criminal proceedings against him. It is unclear whether the applicant ever requested the competent authorities to lift those prohibitions or temporarily to allow him to leave the country. 23.  It appears from the materials in the case file that three of those prohibitions were lifted on 13 December 2006, 9 February 2007 and 15 June 2007 respectively. 24.  In an order of 30 July 2007, issued under section 76 (2) of the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act 1998 (see paragraph 30 below), the director of the Burgas Regional Police Department, citing the applicant’s criminal convictions, banned him from leaving the country and from obtaining an international passport pending his rehabilitation in case no. 40/95. 25.  The applicant sought judicial review of the order, arguing that the imposition of the ban had not been necessary. 26.  In a judgment of 8 January 2008 the Burgas Administrative Court upheld the order. So did the Supreme Administrative Court in a final judgment of 30 June 2008 (реш. № 7899 от 30 юни 2008 г. по адм. д. № 3390/2008 г., ВАС, V о.). The courts found that as the applicant had been convicted of several criminal offences and had not yet been rehabilitated, the legal requirements for imposing the ban were met. Furthermore, since it was intended to maintain public order, the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the ban was not in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 which allowed freedom of movement to be curtailed in certain cases. The courts finally said that it was within the police authorities’ discretion to impose such a ban and that their discretion was not subject to judicial review. 27.  Meanwhile, on 31 July 2007 the applicant asked the Haskovo Regional Court to rehabilitate him with a view to having the ban lifted. The request was rejected by both the Haskovo Regional Court and the Plovdiv Court of Appeal. The final judgment was delivered on 7 February 2008. 28.  On 3 February 2009 the applicant asked the director of the Burgas Regional Police Department to lift the travel ban, arguing that since 2000 he had been a law‑abiding citizen and had not committed an offence. The director lifted the ban on 18 February 2009.