5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Linz. 6.  The applicant is a practising lawyer. In July 2005 the applicant was informed by the Linz District Court that it planned to appoint him as legal guardian (Sachwalter) for K, who was suffering from a mental illness, and asked him to comment on the proposal. According to the document supplied by the court, there were no known relatives of K who could become guardians, and the association of guardians (Verein für Sachwalterschaft) had informed the court that it lacked the capacity to take over guardianship. 7.  The applicant submitted comments, stating that his wife objected to the proposal, since K might call the applicant at weekends and disturb their family life. His professional and spare-time activities would also not allow him to take on another duty. He added that he was not trained to deal with persons with a mental illness such as K and was not interested in acquiring the necessary training either. Furthermore, he argued that his professional insurance would not cover the risks associated with being a legal guardian; therefore, he would have to enter into a separate insurance agreement. The costs would have to be borne by K, who – according to the court file which the applicant had received – did not appear to have the money to cover them. 8.  By a decision of the Linz District Court of 15 September 2005 the applicant was appointed as legal guardian for K in matters of management of income and representation before the courts and other authorities. The court found that no other person, such as a relative, was suitable to be K’s legal guardian. The association of guardians did not have the capacity to appoint a legal guardian for K. The applicant was the next person on the list of possible legal guardians. This list, which is kept by the Linz District Court, contains the names of all lawyers and public notaries in the district. The court also found that the reasons submitted by the applicant were not sufficient to justify his refusal; it held that neither having two children, nor leading a church choir, nor being member of a supervisory board constituted a valid reason as to why he should be declared unsuitable for the task. The court also held that the duty for lawyers to act as legal guardians did not constitute forced labour, as helping weaker members of society was a civic duty and for practising lawyers, rendering help in legal matters was part of their core professional duties and was comparable to a normal civic obligation within the meaning of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention. 9.  The applicant appealed against the decision to the Linz Regional Court, arguing that if the duty were to constitute a normal civic obligation, it was discriminatory to put only lawyers and public notaries on the list, as other persons also had knowledge of law, such as judges, public servants who had studied law or lawyers working in companies. He also alleged that the tasks he had been ordered to perform did not require special legal knowledge as any adult person could manage their income; he further claimed that no court proceedings in which K was a party were pending, and thus it was not necessary to appoint a practising lawyer as his guardian. 10.  On 15 December 2005 the Linz Regional Court upheld the decision of the Linz District Court, holding that there was at least one trial involving K pending, and that any other tasks the applicant would have to perform in the present case were limited and did not place an excessive burden on him. 11.  The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court, alleging a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4 of the Convention, as only lawyers and their associates (Rechtsanwaltsanwärter) and public notaries and their associates (Notariatskandidaten), but no other persons who had studied law, were placed on the list of possible guardians. He also complained that lawyers were in principle entitled to remuneration for their services, but this applied only in so far as this would not endanger the fulfilment of the basic needs of the person placed under guardianship. By a decision of 7 March 2006 the Supreme Court refused to deal with the matter, finding that it did not raise an important question of law.