5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Malá Ida. He is a judicial enforcement officer (súdny exekútor). 6.  In his official capacity, the applicant acted on behalf of a number of judgment creditors with a view to enforcing their claims. The relevant details concerning the enforcement proceedings are set out in the Appendix to this judgment. 7.  The commencement of the enforcement proceedings was authorised by judicial decisions. 8.  The applicant or, as the case may be, the creditors themselves subsequently requested that the enforcement be discontinued as it had been established that the debtors were devoid of any assets that could serve to satisfy the enforced claims. 9.  Together with those requests, the applicant submitted a breakdown of the costs he had incurred in the enforcement proceedings which he sought to have the creditors ordered to compensate. 10.  Consequently, in joint decisions, the enforcement proceedings were discontinued and orders for payment of the applicant’s costs were issued. 11.  The decisions were taken on the authority of the district courts, as the courts at the first level of jurisdiction, acting through their senior court officers (vyšší súdny úradník). Under section 2 of the Court Officers Act (Law no. 549/2003 Coll., as amended), senior court officers are civil servants (štátny zamestnanec) and, as such, are considered to be employees of the court. 12.  The written versions of the decisions stated that they were final and not subject to appeal. 13.  The applicant nevertheless appealed (odvolanie), seeking compensation for his costs in a higher amount.
As to the admissibility of his appeals, the applicant relied on Article 142 § 2 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended), which provides for the right of appeal to a judge against decisions taken by employees of the court. 14.  The applicant’s appeals, subsequent appeals on points of law (dovolanie) as well as complaints (sťažnosť) under Article 127 of the Constitution were all declared inadmissible. 15.  The applicant’s constitutional complaints in respect of the enforcement proceedings in file nos. 19Er 90/04 and Er 533/00 were declared inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust ordinary remedies by asserting his rights by way of an appeal on points of law (dovolanie). 16.  The remaining constitutional complaints were declared manifestly ill‑founded, although in respect of the enforcement proceedings in file nos. Er 641/2004 and Er 2541/2001 no appeal on points of law had been lodged. 17.  The ordinary courts and the Constitutional Court (in decisions nos. III. ÚS 344/06, II. ÚS 27/07, II. ÚS 28/07 and III. ÚS 66/07) held that, pursuant to Article 202 § 2 of the Code of Civil Proceedings (Law no. 99/1963 Coll., as amended) (“the CCP”), decisions (uznesenie) in enforcement proceedings, which included decisions on the costs of enforcement, were not subject to appeal. This rule was in the position of lex specialis in relation to Article 142 § 2 of the Constitution and was held to take precedence over the latter. The fact that the impugned decisions had been taken by employees of the court and not by judges was therefore found to be of no consequence. 18.  In a number of unrelated but similar situations, raised before the Constitutional Court by the applicant, the Constitutional Court took contradictory views (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). 19.  Meanwhile, the relevant provisions of the CCP were amended, in that they now specifically provide that an appeal to a judge against decisions taken by senior court officers is always available (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).