6.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1951, and live in Ohrid and Skopje respectively. 7.  On 24 June 2009 N.H.A., a member of the SJC, a body vested with jurisdiction to decide, inter alia, on the dismissal of judges (see Amendment XXIX to the Constitution, paragraph 23 below) requested that the SJC initiate professional misconduct proceedings in respect of the first applicant. The request was submitted under sections 55 and 58 of the State Judicial Council Act of 2006 (“the 2006 Act”, see paragraph 24 below) and the Rules governing professional misconduct proceedings in respect of a judge (“the Rules”, see paragraph 30 below), which provided that a member of the SJC could seek the institution of professional misconduct proceedings in respect of a judge. In the request N.H.A. claimed that the first applicant had violated the rules on legal representation of the parties in a case he had adjudicated. The first applicant replied in writing. 8.  A commission for determination of professional misconduct by a judge (Комисија за утврдување нестручно и несовесно вршење на судиската функција, hereinafter “the Commission”) was set up under section 58 of the 2006 Act, composed of five SJC members. N.H.A. did not participate in the composition of the Commission. On the basis of the N.H.A.’s request, the first applicant’s reply and obtained evidence, the Commission submitted a report to the SJC in which it sought that it initiate professional misconduct proceedings against the first applicant, which the SJC did with a separate decision. 9.  On 10 November 2009 the Commission held a hearing at which it heard evidence from N.H.A. and the first applicant. The first applicant stated that on that occasion he had submitted a written request for the withdrawal of N.H.A., citing lack of impartiality. He provided the Court with a copy of that submission. The record of the hearing held on 23 November 2009 indicates that the first applicant referred to that request in his concluding remarks. No decision was taken in respect of the request. The Government submitted that there was no copy of it in the case file. The records of the hearings of 10 and 23 November 2009 were signed by the first applicant, N.H.A. as the complainant, and the members of the Commission. 10.  On 9 December 2009 the plenary of the SJC, which included N.H.A., dismissed the first applicant from the office of judge for professional misconduct, finding that he had violated the rules on legal representation of the parties. 11.  The first applicant challenged that decision at second instance, namely before an appeal panel formed within the Supreme Court (“the Appeal Panel”). Such panels were set up on an ad hoc basis in each separate case. As specified under section 60 of the 2006 Act (see paragraph 24 below), they were composed of nine judges, of whom three were to be Supreme Court judges, four Appeal Court judges and two judges from the court of the defendant. The applicant also sought the withdrawal of Judge T.S. from the Appeal Panel because of a bad personal relationship with him. On 22 March 2010 the President of the Supreme Court, relying on sections 64 and 67 of the Civil Proceedings Act (see paragraphs 26 and 27 below), dismissed the first applicant’s request, finding no grounds for doubt in respect of Judge T.S.’s impartiality. 12.  On 27 April 2010 the Appeal Panel, which included Judge T.S., dismissed the appeal and upheld the SJC’s dismissal decision of 9 December 2009. 13.  By two separate submissions of 8 June and 26 August 2009 (received by the SJC on 23 June and 9 September 2009 respectively), the Minister of Justice, who was an ex officio member of the SJC (see Amendment XXVIII to the Constitution, paragraph 23 below), requested that the SJC institute professional misconduct proceedings in respect of the second applicant. The requests concerned two separate criminal cases (nos. Кок.бр.7/08 and К.бр.1297/02-I), in which the second applicant had sat as president of the adjudicating panels. It was alleged that she had failed to establish the identity of a convicted person (in case no. Кок.бр.7/08) and that there had been a possible conflict of interests (in case no. К.бр.1297/02‑I). The second applicant replied in writing. 14.  The SJC set up a Commission in the second applicant’s case, which did not include the Minister of Justice. On the basis of the requests, the second applicant’s reply and obtained evidence, the Commission submitted a report to the SJC in which it sought that it initiate professional misconduct proceedings against her. On 12 March 2010 the plenary of the SJC initiated professional misconduct proceedings in respect of the second applicant and temporarily suspended her from the office of judge. The relevant parts of that decision read as follows:
“The SJC, on the basis of [the Minister’s] requests ... set up (a commission to determine whether there had been professional misconduct on the part of the second applicant) ... (The Commission) ... submitted to the SJC a report (as to whether the request was justified).
The SJC ... discussed the requests and (the Commission’s) report and decided (to initiate professional misconduct proceedings) ...” 15.  This decision was served on the Minister of Justice, as the complainant, the second applicant and the President of the Skopje Court of Appeal in which the second applicant worked as a judge. 16.  On 24 March 2010 the President of the SJC rejected as inadmissible an appeal by the second applicant against that decision. 17.  On the same date, the President of the SJC asked the SJC to initiate professional misconduct proceedings in respect of the remaining judges who had sat, together with the second applicant, on the adjudicating panel of the Skopje Court of Appeal in criminal case no. Кок.бр.7/08. The grounds for the request were the same as those indicated in the request dated 8 June 2009 (see paragraph 13 above). On 25 March 2010 the President of the SJC agreed to act as complainant in respect of the requests dated 26 August 2009 (with regard to the second applicant) and 24 March 2010. It was agreed that the proceedings should be joined. 18.  On 5 May 2010 the president of the Commission set up in the second applicant’s case refused her request for a public hearing. As stated in the decision, professional misconduct proceedings before the SJC were confidential and the public was excluded in order to preserve the reputation of the judge concerned. 19.  On 15 June 2010 the plenary of the SJC, including the Minister of Justice and the President of the SJC, dismissed the second applicant and Judge V.Dž. from the office of judge for professional misconduct. The grounds for the second applicant’s dismissal were as set out in the requests for her dismissal submitted by the Minister of Justice. The SJC stayed the professional misconduct proceedings (запира постапка) in respect of the remaining judges named in the request of 24 March 2010. The decision was served on the second applicant, the complainant and the President of the Skopje Court of Appeal. 20.  The second applicant appealed to the Supreme Court Appeal Panel against her dismissal (see paragraph 11 above). She complained, inter alia, that the Minister of Justice, as an ex officio member of the SJC and the person who had set in motion the dismissal proceedings against her, had been party to the decision to dismiss her. She requested permission to attend the session before the Appeal Panel in order to argue her case. 21.  At a hearing held on 10 December 2010 in the presence of the second applicant, the Appeal Panel formed within the Supreme Court in her case upheld the dismissal decision for the reasons given by the SJC. 22.  The second applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, arguing that her dismissal had violated her rights under Articles 9 (equality of citizens) and 16 (freedom of conscience, thought and public expression of thought) of the Constitution. On 22 June 2011 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal finding that it had no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the SJC’s decision. As to whether the second applicant’s dismissal affected her freedom of expression, the court held that a distinction had to be made between the exercise of the office of judge and freedom of expression. The court ruled that the office of judge entailed a right and duty to adjudicate in accordance with the law, and that that right and duty did not form part of the rights and freedoms for which it had competence to decide under the Constitution (У.бр.18/2011).