PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE TSATSA ‑ NIKOLOVSKA

To my regret, I disagree with the majority of the Court that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the Convention was not in accordance with the law on the ground of lack of foreseeability.

On the contrary, I am of the opinion that Article 18 of Royal Legislative Decree no. 511 of 31 May 1946 , the Constitutional Court ’s interpretation of this Article and the guidelines of the National Council of the Judiciary are legal rules which provide a sufficiently clear legal basis for the above-mentioned interference. Those rules satisfy the requirements of clarity and foreseeability of the law, especially bearing in mind that the applicant was a trained member of the judiciary.

In my view, the legal rules in question also attain the level of precision required of domestic regulations.

The applicant should have known that joining a Masonic lodge would violate the concept that judges are only to obey the law.

Manifestation of any kind of hierarchy and solidarity, as is required by Masonic lodges – of which the applicant was a member – is incompatible with the exercise of judicial functions.

Taking into account my considerations as regards foreseeability and precision, based on the principles established by case-law (see Vogt v. Germany , judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, p. 24, § 48, and Chorherr v. Austria , judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, pp. 35-36, § 25) and the incompatibility between judicial functions and membership of the Freemasons, I therefore find no violation of Article 11 of the Convention in this case.

I disagree with the judgment of the majority of the Court with regard to damage, costs and expenses because I find no violation at all in this case.