5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Turany. At the relevant time he was attached, as a soldier by profession, to the Military Academy in Liptovský Mikuláš. 6.  On 6 May 2002 the dean of the Faculty of Logistics at the above-mentioned military academy issued a disciplinary order with reference to sections 179(2) and 78(2) of the Military Service Act 1997. In it the applicant was found guilty of a disciplinary offence in that he had grossly offended another person in the context of administrative proceedings before the District Office in Martin. The decision stated that his action constituted a minor offence under section 49(1)(d) of the Minor Offences Act 1990. 7.  The decision stated that the case related to a disagreement between the applicant and his neighbours and that similar problems had occurred previously. With reference to section 81(c) of the Military Service Act 1997, the applicant was fined 1,500 Slovakian korunas (SKK), which was then the equivalent of approximately 37 euros (EUR). That sanction was considered appropriate in view of the danger for society of the applicant's action. With reference to Regulation 393/1990, the applicant was ordered to reimburse the costs of the proceedings. 8.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the decision in question was premature and arbitrary as it had been taken in disregard of the relevant facts. 9.  On 24 June 2002 the rector of the military academy dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision in issue. The rector's decision stated that it was final and that it could not be challenged by means of an ordinary remedy. 10.  On 27 August 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. He alleged that the decisions given by the military authorities were arbitrary and that his right to judicial protection had been violated as those decisions could not be reviewed by the courts. He relied, inter alia, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11.  The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on 11 December 2002. It referred to Article 144 and Article 46 § 2 of the Constitution and to its decision II. ÚS 50/01 and held that administrative decisions which had a bearing on fundamental rights and freedoms could not be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts. The decision stated that the applicant alleged a violation of his right to judicial protection without having sought protection of his specific rights before an ordinary court. Had the applicant brought an action in an ordinary court, the latter would have been obliged to comply with the Constitution when dealing with it.