8.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Plovdiv. He used to work as a shunter at the Bulgarian State Railways. On 15 August 1995 he was dismissed from his work for having breached disciplinary regulations. 9.  On 5 February 1996 the applicant filed with the Plovdiv District Court an action for wrongful dismissal against his former employer. 10.  On 12 March 1996 the District Court heard the applicant and his lawyer and rejected the case, ruling that the applicant’s dismissal was not amenable to judicial review. It based its decision on section 9(3) of the Decree No. 9 of 6 January 1981 and the Supreme Court’s practice, according to which employees of the State Railways dismissed for breach of disciplinary regulations could only appeal to a higher administrative body, not to a court. 11.  On 18 March 1996 the applicant appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court against the District Court’s decision. He argued that Decree No. 9 was contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. He also relied on an amendment to the Labour Code of 1993, stating that it vested with the courts power to examine all appeals for wrongful dismissal, despite the provisions of Decree No. 9. 12.  By decision bearing the date 8 April 1996 the Regional Court, sitting in private, dismissed the applicant’s appeal, holding that in accordance with Decree No. 9 a judicial appeal against the applicant’s dismissal was not possible. 13.  The Regional Court’s decision was not pronounced publicly and was not served. 14.  On 4 June 1996 the case file was transmitted by the judge-rapporteur to the Regional Court’s clerical staff which made an entry in the court’s register. 15.  On 5 June 1996 the case file was transmitted to the District Court and an entry was made in its register. 16.  On 13 June 1996 the applicant submitted a petition for review (преглед по реда на надзора) to the Supreme Administrative Court. 17.  The parties were summoned for a hearing but none of them appeared. 18.  On 18 July 1997, sitting in private, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the petition for review as time barred. It held that the Regional Court’s decision had entered into force on 8 April 1996 and that the two months’ time-limit for submission of a petition for review had expired on 8 June 1996 whereas the petition had been submitted on 13 June 1996.