5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the region of Klaipėda. 6.  The applicant worked as a police officer. On 8 July 1997 he was arrested and charged with bribery. On 10 July 1997 the applicant was released on bail. 7.  The preliminary investigation was completed on 15 September 1997, and the bill of indictment was served upon the applicant on 24 September 1997. 8.  On 29 January 1998 the Klaipėda Regional Court convicted the applicant of abuse of office (Article 287 of the Criminal Code as then in force). 9.  The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 March 1998. 10.  On 23 June 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigations. The Supreme Court noted that the charges against the applicant had been vague. In particular, the charges of bribery indicated in the bill of indictment had been reclassified during the proceedings to an abuse of office. As a result, the applicant’s defence rights had been unduly restricted. Moreover, the Supreme Court considered that the investigation had been incomplete and it pointed to the need to examine the applicant’s allegation that he had acted in accordance with an order of the Minister of Interior, no. 004, classified as “secret”. 11.  On 25 September 1998 the preliminary investigation was completed. 12.  On 12 October 1998 the prosecution finalised the bill of indictment, whereby the applicant was charged with an abuse of office. 13.  On 11 January 1999 the Klaipėda District Court decided to commit the applicant for trial. However, the hearing scheduled for 19 April 1999 was adjourned at the request of defence counsel due to his engagement in another case. 14.  The parties were again summoned for a hearing on 25 November 1999, but defence counsel requested an adjournment due to his holidays. 15.  The next hearing, called for 18 January 2000, was adjourned because of the failure of a number of witnesses to appear before the court. 16.  On 23 February 2000 several witnesses again failed to report. Moreover, defence counsel requested an adjournment in order to clarify the use of classified information, inter alia, order no. 004, which was part of the criminal file. The hearing was therefore adjourned and, on 1 March 2000, the Klaipėda City District Court requested the Supreme Court to interpret the procedural law relating to the use of classified materials. No formal answer from the Supreme Court was received however, and on 8 May 2000 the Klaipėda City District Court summoned the parties to a hearing on 8 June 2000. 17.  The hearings scheduled for 8 and 30 June 2000 were adjourned since several witnesses failed to appear before the court. 18.  On 29 August 2000 the Klaipėda City District Court acquitted the applicant, finding no evidence of a crime. The court noted, inter alia, that it had not examined order no. 004 as no instructions in this respect had been received from the Supreme Court. The prosecution appealed. 19.  From 26 February to 13 March 2001 a break was announced in the appeal proceedings to allow defence counsel time to prepare questions for an anonymous witness who the court intended to hear. 20.  On 5 June 2001 the Klaipėda Regional Court dismissed the prosecution’s appeal. In its decision, the court referred to order no. 004 and noted that, although it had not examined that order specifically in the context of the present case, the judges were familiar with its content. 21.  On 20 November 2001 the Supreme Court again quashed the lower court decisions. It noted, inter alia, that the courts should not have based their findings on order no. 004, which had not been examined during the judicial proceedings. It further noted that, even if such an order existed at all, its provisions were unknown to the court. The case was remitted for an examination at the first instance. 22.  From 17 January 2002 to 18 February 2002, the proceedings were adjourned at the request of defence counsel, who cited his engagement in another case. 23.  On 18 February 2002 the hearing was postponed because of the failure of a number of witnesses to appear; the proceedings were resumed on 22 March 2002. 24.  On 6 May 2002 the applicant’s lawyer requested an adjournment in order to obtain access to the classified information used as evidence in the case. The adjournment was granted until 8 July 2002. 25.  From 8 to 30 July 2002, the court adjourned the proceedings upon the request of defence counsel for time to prepare the applicant’s defence in view of the more serious charges proposed by the prosecution. 26.  On 16 May 2002 the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Interior, requesting permission for access to the classified information “which had been lodged before the court at the beginning of the judicial proceedings”. He alleged that, whereas the charges against him were based on this information, he had not been allowed to familiarise himself with it. His request was refused on the grounds that such permission could only be granted to law enforcement staff. The applicant lodged an appeal before the administrative court. 27.  On 30 July 2002 the Klaipėda City District Court convicted the applicant of abuse of office, relying, inter alia, on the provisions of order no. 004. The applicant was fined and deprived of the right to work in law enforcement institutions for two years. However, he was relieved from serving his criminal sentence, since the time-limits for its imposition had elapsed. The applicant appealed, complaining about the violations of his defence rights and the principle of adversarial proceedings. He alleged that, whereas the courts had based their conclusions on the provisions of order no. 004, they had failed to analyse it at the court hearing. Moreover, he had not been given access to that order. 28.  On 18 September 2002 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action against the refusal of access to the classified material, since he had failed to follow an extra-judicial dispute resolution procedure, namely, to raise the issue before the Commission for the Protection of State Secrets (the Commission). The applicant addressed his request to the Commission on 25 September 2002. 29.  On 30 September 2002 the Klaipėda Regional Court decided to adjourn the proceedings until the issue of the use of and access to the classified evidence was resolved. 30.  On 14 January and again on 17 February 2003 the Commission for the Protection of the State Secrets informed the applicant that he had a right of access to the entirety of his criminal file by virtue of his status as a defendant. The applicant was advised to present this conclusion to the trial court. 31.  The next hearing in the criminal proceedings was scheduled for 4 March 2003. In the meantime, the applicant appealed against the Commission’s decision. 32.  On 4 March 2003 the hearing was adjourned at the request of defence counsel pending the decision of the administrative courts. The applicant was enjoined to inform the court promptly about the outcome of that procedure. However, the administrative courts refused to entertain the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that he had failed to observe the statutory time-limit of 20 days without good reason. The final decision in this respect was taken by the Supreme Administrative Court on 17 April 2003. This decision was received at the Klaipėda Regional Court on 13 May 2003. 33.  On 3 June 2003 the Klaipėda Regional Court established that, by virtue of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in force as of 1 May 2003, the criminal prosecution against the applicant had become time-barred. The conviction was therefore quashed and the proceedings discontinued.