PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGHIDES

1. I agree with point 1 of the operative provisions of the judgment holding that the second applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning his suspension from office is admissible, and I also agree with point 3 of the operative provisions to the effect that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the second applicant’s suspension from office. In addition, I agree with point 6 of the operative provisions regarding the awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

2. I disagree, however, with point 2 of the operative provisions of the judgment holding that the first applicant’s complaints under Articles 8 and 13 and both applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 and 18 of the Convention are inadmissible. I also disagree with points 4, 5 and 7 of the operative provisions of the judgment.

3. As regards points 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the operative provisions of the judgment, rather than issuing a fully-fledged separate opinion or voting anonymously against those points, I have chosen to append this “bare statement of dissent” – a mere statement of disagreement with part of the judgment, one of the modes of expressing dissent to which judges are entitled under Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court.