14 AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT C. The Aliens Act of December 1998 and developments in its application and interpretation 1. The Aliens Act at the relevant time 68. Section 40 (1)(2) in conjunction with Section 10 (1)(1) provides that the Minister of the Interior or other officials authorised by him may revoke a foreigner's residence permit “where by his acts he has endangered the security or the interests of the Bulgarian State or where there exists information that he acts against the security of the country”. Section 42 provides that the Minister of the Interior or other officials authorised by him may order a foreigner's deportation where “his presence in the country poses a serious threat to national security or public order”. 69. Section 44 (4), insofar as relevant, provides as follows: “Until [his] ... deportation ... the foreigner may be placed in a specialised centre at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior or other officers authorised by him.” 70. Section 47 provided, as in force at the relevant time: “(1) Orders issued under Chapter V Part 1 imposing administrative measures which directly concern national security shall not be subject to appeal. (2) These orders shall state only their legal ground.” 2. Application and interpretation 71. The Bulgarian courts have differed on the question whether a mere reference to national security in the grounds of an order under the Aliens Act is sufficient to declare an appeal against such an order inadmissible or whether some proof that national security is indeed at stake should be required (see paragraphs 38-41 above and the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment of 26 July 2000 in case 5155-I-2000). 72. In December 2000 Parliament adopted a law on interpretation of Section 47 of the Aliens Act, clarifying that a court examining the admissibility of an appeal against an administrative decision citing as a legal basis Section 10 (1)(1) of the Aliens Act (“directly related to national security”) should automatically declare the appeal inadmissible without collecting evidence. A motion by 56 members of Parliament and by judges of the Supreme Administrative Court to declare that interpretative law, insofar as relevant here, unconstitutional was rejected by the Constitutional Court on 29 May 2001 on formal grounds.