FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50527/21
Dalibor MIĽAN
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 November 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 50527/21) 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 8 October 2021 by a Slovak national, Mr Dalibor Miľan, who was born in 1963 and lives in Dobrá Niva (“the applicant”), and who was represented by Mr P. Weis, a lawyer practising in Bratislava;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present application is similar to the case of Lörinc and Others v. Slovakia ((dec.) [Committee], no. 27877/21, 5 April 2022), which concerned resolutions and decrees adopted by the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Public Health Authority of Slovakia between 11 March 2020 and 15 May 2021 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. As the applicants in that case, and being represented by the same lawyer, the applicant in the present case invokes almost all Convention provisions, complaining about the adopted measures in so far as they introduced various forms of lockdown, limitations on the right to freedom of assembly and association, as well as an obligation to wear a protective mask and other duties and limitations.
2. As to any distinguishing individual features, the applicant in the present case is a judge who was temporarily suspended by the Judicial Council of Slovakia on the grounds that he had refused to wear a protective mask during court hearings. The suspension lasted six months and entailed in that period a 20% reduction of the applicant’s salary.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
3. In so far as the present application is identical to that of Lörinc and Others (cited above), it is inadmissible on the same grounds, that is being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a), because – in so far as substantiated – it constitutes no more than an actio popularis.
4. As regards the suspension of the applicant’s judicial mandate, his complaint is that it violated his right to work, a right that is as such not guaranteed ratione materiae under the Convention. Nevertheless, even assuming that the applicant wishes to invoke in substance Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to the temporary salary cut, domestic remedies have not been exhausted since there is no indication that he advanced any such complaint before the Constitutional Court when challenging his suspension by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution.
5. Furthermore, no information about the development and outcome (if any) of the said constitutional complaint has been submitted to the Court. This is to be seen in the light of the decision in Lörinc and Others (cited above), in which the applicant’s lawyer was reminded of the responsibility to act professionally and to cooperate meaningfully with the Court.
6. 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 rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. The application must therefore 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 12 January 2023.
Liv Tigerstedt Péter Paczolay
Deputy Registrar President