CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mars 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 }   Communicated on 16 March 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 78815/16 Stoyan Emilov MARINOVSKI against Bulgaria lodged on 14 December 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant worked as a driver of a medical care vehicle at a nuclear power plant company. The application concerns the judicial review proceedings of his dismissal based on a decision of 21 June 2013 of the National Security Agency refusing to issue the applicant with a permit to work at the power plant which under the applicable statutory provisions at the material time was not amenable to judicial review. The dismissal proceedings ended by a final decision dated 17 June 2016 of the Supreme Court of Cassation refusing to admit the applicant’s cassation appeal on points of law. The courts found in particular that they could not examine the validity of the National Security Agency’s decision refusing the permit to work.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, as well as on Article 13 of the Convention in relation with those latter provisions, the applicant complains that the proceedings were unfair and that the scope of judicial review carried out by the domestic courts was not full. He further complains that his dismissal infringed upon his right to protection of property. 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 domestic courts refused to examine the validity of the National Security Agency’s decision refusing to issue the applicant with a permit to work?   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 peaceful enjoyment of possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies in relation to his complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?