CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .s543FF837 { width:151.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 3325/24 Štefan HARABIN against Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14   May   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   3325/24) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 January 2024 by a   Slovak national, Mr Štefan Harabin, who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava (“the applicant”); Considering that Ms Alena Poláčková, judge elected in respect of Slovakia, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3   of the Rules of Court); Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application relates to the outcome of the proceedings against the applicant concerning an alleged disciplinary offence consisting of having participated as a judge in a judgment that was alleged to be manifestly arbitrary and exceeding the powers of the court. The judgment in question had quashed the conviction of an unrelated third person on the grounds that the convicting judge should have been excluded from the case. 2.     The disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were stayed by the Supreme Administrative Court (“the SAC”) on 29 March 2022 on the grounds that he had ceased to be a judge on 31 December 2019. In such circumstances, under the applicable rules, the proceedings could not proceed and would only be resumed if the applicant ever became a judge again. 3.     In the same decision, the SAC held that it had no power to initiate proceedings before the Constitutional Court for the review of constitutionality of the legal provision under which the applicant’s judicial mandate had ceased to exist (section 19(1) of the Judges and Assessor Judges Act (Law no. 385/2000 Coll, as amended with effect from 15 October 2019 by Law no. 282/2019 Coll.)). The provision in question was adopted on 10   September 2019 and stipulated that if a judge agreed to run for election to the national or European Parliament as a candidate of a political party, as the applicant had done on 7 October 2019, this was understood as giving up his or her judicial mandate. The SAC noted that the effects of that provision had already taken place and that it concerned the applicant’s status as a judge. Conversely, it was of no direct consequence for the determination of his guilt and punishment which was a pre-requisite for the SAC’s standing to initiate review of its constitutionality. 4.     The applicant alleged a violation of his rights under Articles 6, 14   and 17 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 3 of Protocol No. 1. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 5.     The applicant’s submissions before the Court as well as the Constitutional Court, which determined his objections in a   decision of 7   September 2023 under case no. III. ÚS 427/23, suggest that the gist of this case is the termination of his judicial mandate under the 2019 amendment, which he considers being illegitimate and having been arbitrarily adopted specifically in relation to him. This is apparent inter alia from the fact that, in so far as he relies on any substantive rights, there has been no impact on them by the outcome of the applicant’s disciplinary proceedings. 6.     As noted by the SAC, the effects of the contested legal rule on the applicant took place in 2019. The same conclusion was reached by an earlier decision of 22 September 2020 in a different set of disciplinary proceedings concerning the applicant, the existence of which transpires from a   Constitutional Court’s decision of 6 July 2021 in respect of case   no.   II.   ÚS   349/21, referred to by the Constitutional Court in the present case. 7.     In any event, in so far as the termination of the applicant’s mandate in 2019 should nevertheless have had any impact on the rights relied on in the present application, there is no indication that the applicant has exhausted any domestic remedies. Should no remedies have been available, the complaints before the Court have been introduced on 26 January 2024, that is after the time-limit set out in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention. 8.     As to the actual outcome of the applicant’s disciplinary proceedings, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not require that there be a national court with competence to invalidate or override national law (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom , 21 February 1986, § 81, Series A no. 98). Other than that, in so far as substantiated, there is no issue of procedural fairness within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see García Ruiz v.   Spain   [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). 9.     In sum, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights specified in his application. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 June 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Lətif Hüseynov   Deputy Registrar   President