4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Varna. 5.  On 30 September 2005, relying on section 76 § 2 of the Bulgarian Identity Papers Act of 1998, the Varna Regional Police Directorate (“the VRPD”) issued an order refusing to issue the applicant with an international passport and ordering that his existing passport be seized. The order was issued on the grounds that the applicant had been previously convicted and the statutory period for legal rehabilitation had not yet expired. 6.  At the time when the order was issued, the applicant was apparently living in Germany. He travelled to Bulgaria in early April 2006 to renew his identity papers. When he applied for his papers on 25 April 2006, the authorities informed him of the order of 30 September 2005 and refused to issue a new passport to him. 7.  The applicant appealed against the order arguing that it contained no reasons to justify the imposition of the ban. 8.  In a judgment of 2 August 2006 the Varna Regional Court quashed the order and remitted the case to the VRPD. The court established that the applicant had been released in November 2003 after serving a two-year prison sentence. It then observed that the appropriateness of the imposed administrative measure was not subject to judicial control. However, the court found that the order was deficient as the relevant circumstances had not been examined. In particular, the VRPD had not commented on the applicant’s numerous trips from and back to Bulgaria following his release, on his Greek citizenship and on his permanent residence permit and address in Germany. All of those factors could have pointed against the imposition of the ban. The Varna Regional Court concluded that the order was not sufficiently reasoned. 9.  Upon appeal, in a final judgment of 22 February 2007, the Supreme Administrative Court (“the SAC”) set aside the lower court’s judgment and confirmed the order. The SAC held that the order was reasoned in so far as it made a reference to the statutory provisions on the basis of which it had been issued. It also held that the personal circumstances of the applicant should not have been examined by the lower court as the VRPD’s discretion in issuing the order was not subject to judicial control. 10.  On 2 May 2007 the applicant requested that the travel ban be lifted because he had been rehabilitated. The VRPD lifted the ban in an order of 11 May 2007 on the grounds of the applicant’s rehabilitation.