CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 26 January 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 62377/16 Margarit Ivanov DELIN against Bulgaria lodged on 24 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the judicial review proceedings of the applicant’s dismissal, a civil servant in the National Security Service. The applicant was dismissed following a decision to withdraw his security clearance for access to classified information which under the applicable statutory provisions at the material time was not amenable to judicial review. In a final judgment of 11 July 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the termination of the applicant’s employment finding, in particular, that it could not examine his arguments challenging the validity of the decision withdrawing his access to classified information. Relying on Articles 6 § 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complains that the proceedings were unfair and that the scope of judicial review carried out by the Supreme Administrative Court was not full. He further complains that his dismissal infringed upon his private life. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to a court with full jurisdiction and were the judicial review proceedings in respect of his dismissal fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the fact that the Supreme Administrative Court refused to examine the validity of the decision withdrawing the applicant’s access to classified information? Did that refusal put disproportionate restrictions on the applicant’s right under Article 6? ( Myriana Petrova v. Bulgaria , no. 57148/08, 21 July 2016).   2.     Did the applicant’s dismissal amount to an interference with his right to private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies in relation to his complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?