FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 72241/01 by Pavol POLKA against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , Mr L. Garlicki , Ms L. Mijović , Mr J. Šikuta, judges , and Mrs F. Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 June 2001,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Pavol Polka, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Ž ilina. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Piro šíková.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Background information

The applicant is a judge. In 1996 he was appointed to the post of President of the District Court in Ž ilina .

In November 1999 an article about the applicant was published in Moment magazine. Its author suggested that the applicant was corrupt and that he had close relations with the criminal underworld.

On 19 November 1999 the Minister of Justice requested presidents and vice-presidents of all district courts and regional courts to submit a declaration of income and property ( finančné priznanie). On 13 December 1999 the applicant informed the Minister that he would not complete the form since there was no provision in Slovakian law authorising the Minister to request such information. It would constitute unlawful collection of data and as such would amount to an unjustified interference with the private life of the applicant and the members of his family.

In a letter of 15 December 1999 the Minister invited the council of judges at the Ž ilina Regional Court to express their opinion on a proposal to remove the applicant from the post of President of the District Court. The Minister stated that the applicant ’ s activities gave rise to doubts about his ability to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary and that he had lost confidence in the applicant ’ s competence in the post in issue. The applicant ’ s refusal to submit the above declaration was not mentioned in the proposal. In its response of 20 December 1999, the council of judges did not recommend the applicant ’ s removal from the post.

On 22 December 1999 the applicant was removed from the post of President of the District Court in Žilina . That decision did not affect the applicant ’ s position as a judge.

In January 2000 the Minister of Justice participated in a television programme in which he stated that he had removed the applicant from the post for his refusal to submit the above declaration.

2. Defamation proceedings against a publishing company (the Bratislava III District Court file 27C 11/00)

On 10 December 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the publishing company of Moment magazine in the Ž ilina District Court. He claimed protection of his personality rights under Articles 11 et seq. of the Civil Code. He requested that the defendant publish an apology and pay him 20,000,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

All the judges of the Ž ilina District Court and the Ž ilina Regional Court considered themselves to be biased. On 3 February 2000 the Supreme Court therefore ordered that the case be transferred to the Bratislava III District Court. The case file was submitted to the Bratislava III District Court on 16 March 2000. In May 2000 the applicant paid the court fee at the District Court ’ s request.

On 7 August 2000 the file was submitted to the Ž ilina Regional Court for disciplinary proceedings against a judge. On 30 April 2001 the Supreme Court gave a ruling in the above disciplinary proceedings and returned the file to the Bratislava III District Court.

On 10 May 2001 the District Court asked the applicant to pay an additional fee. The applicant paid the sum on 20 May 2001.

In June 2001 the applicant submitted further documents and extended his claim.

On 13 August 2001 the court allowed the applicant ’ s request for extension of his claim.

On 20 August 2001 the applicant requested an interim measure; he modified the request on 22 August 2001. On 24 September 2001 the court granted the request for an interim measure.

On 28 September 2001 the court held a hearing which was adjourned on the grounds of the defendant ’ s absence. On 3 October and 11 December 2001 the defendant challenged the District Court judge.

On 24 October 2001 the defendant appealed against the interim measure.

On 12 December 2001 the court adjourned a hearing because of the parties ’ absence.

On 21 February 2002 the Bratislava Regional Court decided that the District Court judge was not precluded from dealing with the case.

On 24 April 2002 the case was adjourned due to the absence of both the defendant and the applicant ’ s representative.

Subsequently the file was submitted to the Constitutional Court , which returned it to the District Court on 30 May 2002.

On 14 June 2002 the District Court took evidence. It adjourned the case because of the defendant ’ s absence. On 2 August 2002 it allowed a modification of the applicant ’ s action.

On 4 September 2002, 2 October and 28 November 2002 and 14 February 2003 the District Court held hearings in the case. On 17 March 2003 it allowed another modification of the applicant ’ s action. The defendant submitted comments on the claim on 31 March 2003.

On 11 April 2003 and 30 May 2003 the court took evidence.

At a hearing held on 27 June 2003 the District Court judge delivered the judgment orally. He stated that an appeal could be lodged against the judgment within fifteen days of the date of service of its written version. On 16 July 2003 the District Court delivered a supplementary judgment orally.

Subsequently the President of the District Court extended until 9 January 2004 the statutory 30-day time-limit within which the judgment with reasons had to be prepared in writing. The reason for the extension was the complex nature of the case.

On 26 April 2004 the President of the District Court admitted, in reply to a complaint by the applicant, that there had been an unjustified delay between 9 January 2004 and 26 April 2004.

On 27 May 2004 the District Court issued an interim measure at the applicant ’ s request. On 8 June 2004 the defendant appealed.

The District Court judge finalised the judgment with reasons on 10 June 2004. It comprised 364 handwritten pages as well as the supplementary judgment.

The judgment was served on the parties on 14 and 15 July 2004. In it the parties were advised, pursuant to Article 204 § 1 of the amended Code of Civil Procedure (as in force since 1 September 2003), that the time-limit for lodging an appeal was thirty days, contrary to what the judge had indicated during the oral delivery of the judgment.

On 11 August 2004 the defendant appealed.

On 9 September 2004 the file was submitted to the Supreme Court in the context of disciplinary proceedings instituted against the District Court judge. The Supreme Court returned the file to the District Court on 22 December 2004 after it had concluded that the judge involved had committed no disciplinary offence.

On 12 October 2004 the applicant submitted comments on the defendant ’ s appeal.

In the second half of November 2004 the file was again submitted to the Supreme Court in the context of proceedings concerning the District Court judge. The Supreme Court sent the file back to the District Court on 22 December 2004.

The file was submitted to the court of appeal on 7 January 2005. On 30 June 2005 the Bratislava Regional Court decided the appeal: it modified a part of the first instance judgment, quashed the remainder of the judgment and returned the case to the District Court for further hearing. The relevant part of the judgment became final after its service on the parties on 9 September 2005.

Between 28 September 2005 and 14 November 2005 the file was submitted to the Supreme Court in the context of an examination of the application of the District Court judge for a post at the Supreme Court.

In October and December 2005 the applicant submitted further evidence.

Subsequently the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. The applicant withdrew the action and the District Court discontinued the proceedings on that ground on 6 September 2006.

3. Proceedings concerning the action of 13 April 2000 (the Bratislava III District Court file no. 27C 31/00)

On 13 April 2000 the applicant sued the State, represented by the Ministry of Justice, in the Ž ilina District Court. With reference to Articles 11 et seq. of the Civil Code he claimed that the defendant, by requesting him to submit a declaration of income and property, had violated his personality rights. The applicant requested that the defendant be ordered to request the media to publish an apology to the applicant and to pay him SKK 20,000,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

On 23 June 2000 the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Bratislava III District Court on the ground that all the judges of the Ž ilina District Court and the Ž ilina Regional Court considered themselves to be biased. On 3 August 2000 the file was submitted to the Bratislava III District Court.

On 24 August 2000 the file was submitted to the Ž ilina Regional Court for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against a judge. On 30 April 2001 the Supreme Court gave a ruling in the above disciplinary proceedings and returned the file to the Bratislava III District Court.

On 19 June 2001 the applicant extended his action. He referred to statements by the Minister according to which the latter had removed the applicant for his refusal to submit the declaration. The applicant alleged that he had also suffered pecuniary damage. On 13 August 2001 the District Court decided to deal with that claim separately.

On 5 October and 14 December 2001 the court held hearings, which were adjourned on grounds of the defendant ’ s absence. On 17 December 2001 the District Court fined the defendant for its representative ’ s failure to appear.

A hearing was held on 1 March 2002.

On 6 March 2002 the District Court partly granted the applicant ’ s claim. The operative part of the judgment stated, inter alia , that the defendant had infringed the applicant ’ s personality rights by requiring that the latter submit a declaration of income and property. In the reasons for the judgment the District Court stated that the above request had no legal basis and that by his refusal to comply with it the applicant had legitimately protected his privacy.

The reasons for the judgment further indicated that the defendant had interfered with the applicant ’ s personality rights by dismissing him from the office of President of the District Court for his refusal to submit the declaration . While the Minister had been free to remove persons in similar positions from their posts without giving reasons, in the applicant ’ s case the Minister had explicitly stated in the media that he had done so because of the applicant ’ s failure to submit the declaration. Reference was made to the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Wille v. Liechtenstein ( [GC], no. 28396/95, ECHR 1999 ‑ VII ).

The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant SKK 6,000,000 (the equivalent of approximately 143,200 euros at that time) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It dismissed the applicant ’ s remaining claims.

In the second half of April 2002 the file was submitted to the Constitutional Court , which examined a complaint lodged by the applicant. The file was returned to the District Court on 30 May 2002.

The judge finalised the judgment with reasons comprising 54 pages on 10 June 2002.

On 2 and 4 July 2002 the parties appealed. On a request by the court of 1 August 2002 the applicant submitted further information concerning his appeal on 30 August 2002.

On 30 September 2002 the District Court asked the applicant to pay court fees.

On 13 November 2002 the applicant withdrew his appeal in part.

On 19 November 2002 the file was submitted to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the parties ’ appeals.

On 28 May 2003 the applicant submitted further evidence to the court of appeal. It was a record of a hearing in a different set of proceedings at which the Minister of Justice had stated that he had removed the applicant as President of the District Court in Žilina for the latter ’ s failure to declare his property.

On 24 June 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the District Court ’ s decision ordering the defendant to compensate the applicant for non-pecuniary damage. It returned the relevant part of the case to the District Court for further examination. The Regional Court upheld the remaining parts of the first-instance judgment, which thus became final.

The court of appeal confirmed that the defendant had without justification asked the applicant to submit personal information and had published incorrect and incomplete information about the applicant in the media. The decision on compensation for non-pecuniary damage was premature as it was necessary to establish reliably to what extent the interference in issue had diminished the applicant ’ s dignity and position in society within the meaning of Article 13 § 2 of the Civil Code.

The court of appeal ’ s decision was served on the parties on 1 and 6 October 2003.

On 2 December 2003 the applicant submitted documentary evidence to the District Court. He also proposed that the court take further evidence, inter alia, by hearing thirty witnesses.

The District Court held hearings on 2 June, 29 September, 10 November 2004 and 15 December 2004. Several of the seven witnesses summoned failed to appear.

On 15 February 2004 the District Court adjourned the case with the intention of obtaining witness evidence with the assistance of different courts.

On 25 April 2006 the District Court ruled on an interim application lodged by the applicant. The defendant appealed and the file was submitted to the Regional Court in Bratislava on 7 July 2006.

The proceedings are pending.

4. Constitutional proceedings

a) Application of 18 January 2000

On 18 January 2000 the applicant lodged an application under Article 130 § 3 of the Constitution, alleging that by requesting him to submit a declaration of income and property the Ministry of Justice had interfered with his right to respect for private life and with his right to protection against unlawful collection of data.

On 23 March 2000 the Constitutional Court rejected the application on the ground that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts and that the applicant should seek protection of his rights before them.

b) Complaint of 11 January 2002

On 11 January 2002 the applicant complained, under Article 127 of the Constitution enacted with effect from 1 January 2002, of the excessive length of the proceedings concerning his action against a publishing company of 10 December 1999.

The applicant argued, in particular, that under Article 200i § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure courts were obliged to determine claims for protection of one ’ s personality rights within one year. Furthermore, there had been no reason for submitting the original of the case file to higher courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings which had not concerned the applicant. The Bratislava III District Court could just as well have submitted a copy of the file for that purpose as well.

On 9 April 2003 the Constitutional Court held that the applicant ’ s right to have the case decided without undue delay had not been breached as a result of the Bratislava III District Court ’ s actions.

The decision stated that the case was not complex. The applicant had partly contributed to the overall length of the proceedings since he had modified his action and since he had requested that one hearing should be rescheduled. The defendant had not duly cooperated, but the District Court had taken action with a view to redressing the situation.

As to the conduct of the District Court, the Constitutional Court noted that the file had been submitted to different courts, in the context of disciplinary proceedings, from 7 August 2000 to 30 April 2001. The District Court had several times requested that the file be returned to it. The Constitutional Court did not consider it erroneous in the circumstances for the District Court not to send a copy of the file to the disciplinary court. There had been no delays in the proceedings after 30 April 2001.

In the above circumstances, the overall period of thirty-six months, twenty-four of which the District Court had taken to deal with the case, was not excessively long.

c) Complaint of 25 January 2002

On 25 January 2002 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings concerning his action against the State filed on 13 April 2000. As in his complaint of 11 January 2002, the applicant argued that the time-limits laid down in Article 200i of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been respected and that the Bratislava III District Court could have proceeded with his case if it had submitted a copy of the file to the disciplinary court.

On 19 March 2003 the Constitutional Court held that the applicant ’ s right to have the case decided without undue delay had not been infringed as a result of the Bratislava III District Court ’ s actions in these proceedings.

The Bratislava III District Court had duly proceeded with the case without any unjustified delay. The overall length of the proceedings before the District Court of approximately twenty-one months, during which the file had been transmitted to the Regional Court and to the Supreme Court for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings for a period of eight months, had not been excessive.

d) Complaint of 16 July 2007

On 16 July 2007 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the Regional Court in Bratislava had violated his right to a hearing within a reasonable time in that it had remained inactive in the case concerning his action against the State since 7 July 2006. The proceedings are pending.

B. Relevant domestic law

1 . The Civil Code

Article 11 provides that any natural person has the right to protection of his or her personality, in particular of his or her life and health, civil and human dignity, privacy, name and personal characteristics.

Article 13 § 1 provides that any natural person has the right to request that unjustified infringement of his or her personal ity rights be stopped and the consequences of such infringement eliminated, and to obtain appropriate satisfaction.

Article 13 § 2 provides that in cases where the satisfaction obtained under Article 13 § 1 is insufficient, in particular because a person ’ s dignity and position in society has been considerably diminished, the injured person is entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Article 13 § 3 provides , when determining the amount of such compensation , the courts have to take into account the seriousness of the prejudice suffered by the person concerned and also the circumstances under which the violation of that person ’ s rights occurred.

2. The Code of Civil Procedure

Article 200i § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure obliged courts to decide claims for protection of one ’ s personality rights within one year of the introduction of the action.

That provision was quashed with effect from 1 January 2003 following the Constitutional Court ’ s finding of 7 November 2002 declaring it contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

3. The Courts and Judges Act 1991 (Act 335/1991 Coll.)

At the relevant time the following provisions were in force.

Pursuant to section 39(3), presidents and vice-presidents of both regional courts and district courts are appointed from among judges by the Minister of Justice.

Section 50(2) gives the Minister of Justice the right to remove presidents of, inter alia , district courts from their posts. Section 50(6) provides that such a removal does not entail the loss by the person concerned of his or her position as a judge.

Section 58(8)(g) entitles councils of judges to express views on proposals to appoint and remove presidents and vice-presidents of courts.

4. The State Administration of Courts Act 1992 (Act 80/1992 Coll.)

The 1992 Act governs, inter alia, the State administration of courts. Its task is to ensure the proper functioning of the judiciary and it also covers personnel, organisation, management, finances and professional skills. The exercise of State administration of courts must not interfere with the independence of courts and judges (section 7).

The central authority in charge of the State administration of courts is the Ministry of Justice. The other authorities vested with that task are the president and vice-president of the Supreme Court as well as the presidents and vice-presidents of regional courts and district courts (section 8).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complain ed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that (i) the two sets of proceedings concerning his actions had lasted an excessively long time, (ii) in the proceedings concerning the action of 10 December 1999 the District Court had failed to produce a written judgment within the statutory 30-day time-limit and the indication in that judgment of the time-limit for lodging an appeal differed from the information given during the oral delivery of the judgment, and (iii) his right of access to a court had been violated in that the Constitutional Court had not examined the merits of his application of 18 January 2000.

2. The applicant also alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in that the Minister of Justice had asked him to submit a declaration of income and property without having any legal basis on which to do so.

3. Under Article 10 of the Convention the applicant complained that his right to freedom of expression had been violated in that he had been punished by dismissal from the office of President of the District Court for having expressed his opinion on an unlawful request of the Minister of Justice.

THE LAW

1. The applicant ’ s first complaint relates to fairness and length of proceedings concerning his cases. He relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which in its relevant part provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

a) As to the complaint about the length of the proceedings, the Government objected that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, it had been open to the applicant to seek redress by means of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution if he considered that unjustified delays had occurred during the period subsequent to the Constitutional Court ’ s decisions of 19 March 2003 and 9 April 2003.

The applicant disagreed. He argued, in particular, that he had introduced the application prior to 1 January 2002 when the amended Article 127 of the Constitution had taken effect.

The Court has previously held that applicants who had introduced their application prior to 1 January 2002 were required to use the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution if the proceedings complained of were pending (see, for example, Skurčák v. Slovakia , no. 58708/00, § 33, 5 December 2006 , and Pa ška v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 41081/98, 3 December 2002).

The applicant in the present case complied with this requirement in that he lodged complaints under Article 127 of the Constitution in respect of both sets of proceedings in issue. The Constitutional Court concluded, on 19 March 2003 and 9 April 2003 respectively, that the proceedings had not lasted an excessively long time.

In respect of similar situations the Court has held that repeated recourse to the domestic remedy is not required where the effects produced by the decision of the competent authority do not satisfy the criteria applied by the Court. Such is the case, for example, where the domestic authority, unlike the Court, concluded that the length of the proceedings in issue was not excessive (see Becov á v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007, with further references).

It must therefore first be determined whether or not the conclusions which the Constitutional Court reached are compatible with the principles which the Court applies when examining complaints about the length of proceedings.

As regards the proceedings concerning the action against a publishing company, the Constitutional Court did not find excessive the overall period of thirty-six months, twenty-four of which the Bratislava III District Court had taken to deal with the case. In the other set of proceedings it reached the same conclusion in respect of a period of twenty-one months during which the case had been pending before the Bratislava III District Court, noting that the file had been with a different court for eight months for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against a judge.

Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, and even assuming that a delay of approximately eight months had occurred due to the fact that the District Court had submitted the original file and not a copy to different courts for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings, the Court finds that at the time of the Constitutional Court ’ s decision the two sets of proceedings complained of had not lasted an excessively long time contrary to the requirements of Article 6 § 1.

In these circumstances, the applicant was required to file a fresh complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution in respect of any alleged delays in the proceedings during the period subsequent to the Constitutional Court ’ s judgments.

The Court notes that on 16 July 2007 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court of inactivity of the Regional Court in Bratislava , which was dealing with the appeal against an interim application. However, the Constitutional Court has not yet decided that complaint.

The requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies therefore prevents the Court from examining the relevant part of the application.

It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 3 5 §§ 1 , 3 and 4 of the Convention partly as being manifestly ill-founded and partly for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

b) To the extent that the applicant complained of shortcomings in the proceedings concerning his action against a publishing company, the Court notes that those proceedings were ultimately discontinued after the applicant had withdrawn his action. In this respect the applicant can therefore no longer claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

c) The applicant also complained that his right of access to a court had been violated in that the Constitutional Court had refused to deal with the merits of his application of 18 January 2000.

The Court first notes that an application under Article 130 § 3 of the Constitution as in force at the relevant time was not an effective remedy which applicants were required to use, in particular because the Constitutional Court lacked the power to draw any legal consequences from its finding that a petitioner ’ s rights or freedoms had been violated (see, for example, Šupa v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 72291/01, 6 February 2007).

In any event, in the proceedings complained of the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant ’ s complaint of an interference with his right to respect for private life and with his right to protection against unlawful collection of data fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts and that the applicant should seek protection of his rights before them. In view of the subsequent developments in the case, in particular as regards the applicant ’ s claim for protection of his personality rights lodged against the State represented by the Ministry of Justice, the Court cannot accept the applicant ’ s argument that by its above decision the Constitutional Court infringed his right under Article 6 § 1 of access to a court.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicant complained that by requesting him to submit a declaration of income and property the Minister of Justice had infringed his right to respect for his private life. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention which in its relevant part provides:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life, ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The Court notes that in the proceedings on the applicant ’ s action of 13 April 2000 a final decision exists, which concluded that by taking the action complained of the Minister of Justice had infringed the applicant ’ s rights under Articles 11 et seq. of the Civil Code, which include the right to respect for one ’ s privacy. Those proceedings are still pending as regards the applicant ’ s claim in respect of compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from that violation. The determination of this issue is relevant for the Court to assess whether or not the applicant can still claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, for example, Amuur v. France , judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI). In these circumstances, this part of the application is premature.

It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 3 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

3. Finally, the applicant complained that his right to freedom of expression had been violated, in that he had been punished by dismissal from the office of President of the District Court in Žilina for having expressed his opinion on an unlawful request of the Minister of Justice. The applicant relied on Article 10 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority...

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression. In particular, the removal of the applicant as President of the District Court was the consequence of his refusal to complete and return a declaration about his property as requested by the Minister of Justice and not of any particular opinion expressed by the applicant.

The applicant disagreed.

The documents submitted by the parties support the Government ’ s argument that the removal of the applicant as President of the District Court in Žilina was the consequence of his refusal to complete and return a declaration of his property. There is no indication that any particular reasons for his refusal to submit the declaration which the applicant had communicated to the Minister had played a particular role in the latter ’ s decision.

In its judgment of 6 March 2002 the Bratislava III District Court expressly stated that the Minister of Justice had acted contrary to the law by dismissing the applicant from the office of President of the District Court in Žilina for his refusal to submit the declaration.

Considering that this complaint has the same factual background as the complaint under Article 8 in respect of which the domestic courts had acknowledged that the applicant ’ s rights had been infringed, t he Court discerns no issue requiring it to examine separately the complaint which the applicant makes under Article 10 of the Convention.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to reject the application.

For these reasons, the Cou rt unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President