Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65

June 2004

Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.) - 62584/00

Decision 29.6.2004 [Section IV]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Attempted dismissal of President of Supreme Court, allegedly for expressing his views on the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary: inadmissible

In 1998 the applicant was elected as President of the Supreme Court. Two years later, the Government initiated a procedure to revoke his appointment on grounds that his actions and behaviour raised doubts as to his trustworthiness and did not meet the requirements for the post. A report prepared by the Minister of Justice with a numb er of allegations against the applicant stated, inter alia , that the views he had expressed regarding the amendment of several laws on the judiciary, as well as on a draft amendment of the Constitution, evidenced a desire on his part to strengthen his pers onal powers rather than focus on the professional and ethical problems of the judiciary. The applicant filed a petition with the Constitutional Court which was dismissed, mainly because there was no right under the Constitution to exercise the post for whi ch he had been elected and because there was no indication that his constitutional rights had been violated. In any event, given that the Government’s revocation proposal was defeated, the applicant held the post of President of the Supreme Court until the appointment had expired.

Inadmissible under Article 10: Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) – the remedy advanced by the Government under the Civil Code was not designed to protect the applicant’s freedom of expression as such: objection d ismissed. As the disputed measure essentially concerned the applicant’s ability to properly exercise the post of President of the Supreme Court, a matter related to the administration of justice, not one of a right secured by the Convention, it was unneces sary for the Court to determine whether the allegations in the Minister’s report were well founded. Even assuming that the Government’s proposal to remove the applicant from office had had a chilling effect on his freedom of expression, it had been of a li mited duration, as the motion for his revocation had finally been defeated: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes