6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava. 7.  The applicant is a Supreme Court judge. He was the president of the Supreme Court between 1998 and 2003. Between July 2006 and June 2009 he was the Minister of Justice. Since 23 June 2009 he has again been the President of the Supreme Court. 8.  The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic has been entered in the official register of the Statistical Office as a budgetary organisation, its activity being justice and the judiciary. For the purpose of national account‑keeping it has been classified in the Statistical Register of Organisations as falling within the sector of central public administration. Its budget forms a separate chapter of the State budget in accordance with section 9(1)(f) of Law no. 523/2004 on Budgetary Rules in Public Administration (“the Public Administration (Budgetary Rules) Act 2004”). 9.  Following the entry into force of the Audit Act 2001 (for further details see below), the Ministry of Finance carried out financial controls of the Supreme Court in 2004 and 2007. 10.  Between 23 January 2009 and 27 April 2009 the Ministry of Finance carried out a governmental audit at the Supreme Court, focused on the use of public funds and efficiency of financial management during 2007, and on the manner in which the shortcomings identified during the previous financial control had been eliminated. On 16 April 2009 the preliminary report was submitted to the Supreme Court, then headed by its Vice‑President. Subsequently, in September and October 2009 and March 2010 the Director of the Supreme Court submitted to the Ministry of Finance documents indicating what measures had been taken aimed at elimination of the shortcomings found, and how those measures had been implemented. The documents were signed by the applicant as President of the Supreme Court. 11.  On 21 July 2010 the Minister of Finance instructed a group of auditors to carry out an audit at the Supreme Court pursuant to section 35a(1) of the Audit Act 2001. Its aim was to examine the use of public funds, efficiency of financial management, use of State property and to check on compliance with measures which had been indicated in the course of the preceding audit of 2009. 12.  The applicant in his capacity as President of the Supreme Court did not allow the Ministry’s auditors to carry out the audit on 29 July 2010, or on 2, 3 and 4 August 2010. 13.  On 2 August 2010 the applicant asked the President of the Supreme Audit Office (Najvyšší kontrolný úrad) to carry out a check on how public funds were administered and used by the Supreme Court. He referred to the above instruction of the Minister of Finance and to Constitutional Court judgment PL. 97/07. The reply he received, dated 27 August 2010, stated that the Constitution guaranteed the independence of the Supreme Audit Office, and that it had no spare capacity for additional supervisory activities in 2010. 14.  By letters dated 3 and 6 August 2010 the applicant informed the Minister of Finance that Ministry of Finance auditors lacked the power to carry out the audit. The applicant argued that it was the Supreme Audit Office which had the authority to supervise the administration of public funds by the Supreme Court. 15.  On 11 August 2010 the Ministry of Finance issued a decision fining the applicant 995.81 euros (EUR), on the ground that by refusing the audit he had failed to comply with his obligations under the Audit Act 2001. The applicant lodged an objection. On 29 September 2010 the Minister of Finance decided to discontinue the proceedings, on the ground that his ministry lacked the power to sanction the applicant as a judge. 16.  In parallel, by a decision issued on 11 August 2010, the Ministry of Finance fined the Supreme Court EUR 33,193.91 for failure to comply with its obligations under the Audit Act 2001. On 29 September 2010 the Minister of Finance dismissed the objection to the decision on the fine lodged by the Supreme Court. 17.  On 18 January 2011 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the above two decisions and returned the case to the Ministry of Finance. It held that the Supreme Court was the highest body within the ordinary judiciary, and that it did not engage in public administration. The relevant provisions of the Audit Act 2001 did not extend to it. Public funds administered by the Supreme Court formed a part of the budget approved by Parliament. Monitoring of the use of those funds lay therefore with the Supreme Audit Office. On 28 April 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance judgment. 18.  In July and December 2011 the Supreme Court did not allow the Ministry of Finance to carry out an audit. Reference was made to the aforesaid judgments of the ordinary courts. On 27 February 2012 the Ministry of Finance fined the Supreme Court EUR 33,193.91 on that account. Reference was made, inter alia, to Constitutional Court decision PL. ÚS 92/2011 of 29 June 2011 (for further details see below). 19.  On 23 April 2012, following a parliamentary election, the newly appointed Minister of Finance, upon the advice of a special commission, allowed the Supreme Court’s objection and quashed the fine of 27 February 2012. The Minister’s decision referred to the judgments of the Bratislava Regional Court and the Supreme Court, which were considered binding. The Constitutional Court proceedings, filed as PL. ÚS 92/2011, concerned a different issue, namely establishing whether the President of the Supreme Court had committed a disciplinary offence. The Constitutional Court’s decision in those proceedings had no legal effect on the judgments of the Regional Court or Supreme Court. 20.  From 2 February to 26 April 2012 the Supreme Audit Office carried out an audit at the Supreme Court, focused on financial management under the corresponding chapter of the State budget and the closing accounts for 2011. 21.  On 18 November 2010 the Minister of Justice initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant before the Constitutional Court. She did so upon a submission by the Minister of Finance and also following a notification by a police investigator who had dismissed the latter’s criminal complaint against the applicant, while holding that the applicant’s conduct might be qualified as a disciplinary offence. 22.  The submission indicated that the applicant had four times prevented a group of auditors from the Ministry of Finance from carrying out an audit at the Supreme Court in July and August 2010. The audit had been focused on use of public funds and other State property, efficiency of financial management, and elimination of the shortcomings which had been identified in the previous audit by Ministry of Finance auditors in 2009. It was proposed that the applicant should be sanctioned by a reduction of his yearly salary by 70%, as by preventing the audit from taking place he had committed a serious disciplinary offence. 23.  On 16 March 2011 the applicant submitted arguments in writing. He maintained that he had acted in conformity with the law and the Constitution, as the relevant law could not be interpreted as allowing the Ministry of Finance to carry out an audit of the Supreme Court. The applicant submitted detailed arguments in support of that view. In particular, he submitted that the Supreme Court functioned on the basis of a budget approved by the Parliament. Responsibility for audit of the use of those funds lay with the Supreme Audit Office. Governmental audit and other measures had no legal basis and were contrary to the principle of independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court was neither a public administration body nor a central authority within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Audit Act 2001. The applicant also relied on the Venice Commission Report on the Independence of the Judicial System and on Constitutional Court decision PL. ÚS 97/07 of 20 September 2007. 24.  The differing views as to which body was entitled to carry out the audit at the Supreme Court concerned interpretation of the relevant law. The applicant expressed the view that the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice had attempted to cast doubt on the management of public funds which had been allocated to the Supreme Court in a separate chapter of the State budget, with a view to undermining the economic independence of that court. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant pursued the aim of sanctioning him for his opinions on the law. 25.  On 17 March 2011 the Minister of Justice challenged three constitutional judges for bias, on the ground that they had had a personal relationship with the applicant for several years and that they had been nominated to posts in the judiciary and public administration by the same political party. She pointed out that there had been earlier decisions in which two of those judges had been excluded for similar reasons. 26.  On 5 April 2011 the applicant challenged four different constitutional judges for bias. In particular, he argued that Judge G. had made negative statements about the applicant’s professional skills in the context of the election of the President of the Supreme Court. The applicant noted that there had been statements in decision II. ÚS 5/03 of 19 February 2003. That decision had been given by a chamber of the Constitutional Court which included Judge G. 27.  As regards Judge O., the applicant submitted that he had made several negative statements in the media about the applicant. Thus in 2000 that judge had stated, at the time as chairman of a parliamentary committee, that the way the applicant had acted as President of the Supreme Court was such that the interest of the judiciary would be best served by replacing him. In a different statement Mr O. had indicated that the applicant could be removed under the law in force and in compliance with the Constitution. In different proceedings involving the applicant a chamber of the Constitutional Court had excluded Judge O. (decision I. ÚS 352/2010 of 20 October 2010). 28.  The applicant further objected that Judge L. was a member of the same chamber to which Judges G. and O. belonged. Their relations were not neutral. 29.  Finally, Judge H. had been convicted of a criminal offence, that of failure to pay tax, and had ignored the document of 31 December 2007 in which the Constitutional Court (in plenary session) had invited him to consider his position as a constitutional judge. The applicant had criticised Judge H. on several occasions earlier on that ground. He therefore feared that that judge would lack impartiality in his respect. 30.  In reply to the applicant’s objection all the judges stated that they did not consider themselves biased. Judge G. indicated that the decision on which the applicant relied contained no statements about his professional skills and that she had never made any such statements personally. Judge O. stated that his involvement in different proceedings concerning the applicant was not a relevant reason for his exclusion. Judge L. considered irrelevant the applicant’s argument based on the fact that he belonged to the same chamber as Judges G. and O. Judge H. rejected the applicant’s objection concerning his standing to act as a constitutional judge as unsubstantiated. He acknowledged that the applicant enjoyed freedom of expression, which included the freedom to make critical remarks about constitutional judges. Such criticism did not affect the ability of Judge H. to carry out his duties in an impartial manner. 31.  On 10 May 2011 the Constitutional Court found that the seven judges challenged by the parties were not excluded from dealing with the case. The fact that four of those judges (including Judges O. and H.) had earlier been excluded from other sets of proceedings involving the applicant could not affect the position. The Constitutional Court had found in particular that the determination of the disciplinary offence allegedly committed by the applicant was within the exclusive jurisdiction of its plenary session. Excessive formalism and overlooking the statements of the individual judges posed the risk that the proceedings would be rendered ineffective. Examination of the case by a plenary session of the Constitutional Court represented a guarantee that constitutional principles, including independence, would be respected. Furthermore, all the constitutional judges had pledged to decide cases independently and impartially, to the best of their abilities and conscience. 32.  On 10 May 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the Ministry of Justice representation admissible. 33.  On 13 June 2011 the applicant again challenged the constitutional judge, H. He argued that the Constitutional Court had excluded that judge in different proceedings, in which the applicant had been involved as President of the Supreme Court (III. ÚS 257/11). 34.  The applicant further challenged the Minister’s standing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. He relied on the Bratislava Regional Court judgment of 18 January 2011 and the Supreme Court judgment of 28 April 2011 (see paragraph 17 above), and argued that he had not acted in a manner contrary to the law. 35.  On 15 June 2011 the Constitutional Court heard the parties and two witnesses. 36.  On 29 June 2011 the Constitutional Court (plenary session in which all thirteen judges took part) found the applicant guilty of a serious disciplinary offence (závažné disciplinárne previnenie) under section 116(2)(c) of the Judges and Assessors Act 2000. In particular, the applicant had failed to comply duly, conscientiously and in timely fashion with his obligations relating to court administration as laid down in section 42(2)(a) of the Courts Act 2004 and section 14(2)(a) in conjunction with section 35d(7) of the Audit Act 2001, in that he had four times prevented a group of auditors of the Ministry of Finance from carrying out an audit at the Supreme Court in July and August 2010. 37.  The Constitutional Court imposed a disciplinary sanction on the applicant under section 117(5)(b) of the Judges and Assessors Act 2000, which consisted of a 70% reduction of his annual salary.
The applicant indicated that that sanction corresponded to EUR 51,299.96. 38.  In the reasons for its decision the Constitutional Court referred to its decision PL. ÚS 97/07 of 26 September 2007 and examined the case from the point of view of the principles of independence of the judiciary, independence of judges, and separation of powers. 39.  It held that any external audit in respect of the judicial branch of power had to be limited. Any such audit must have an unequivocal legal basis and a clearly defined scope. Those criteria had been met in the case under consideration. 40.  In particular, the Constitutional Court referred to sections 2(2) and 35a(1) of the Audit Act 2001, and noted that the Slovak Statistical Office had entered the Supreme Court in the register of public administration bodies. That register had been established in accordance with rules applicable within the European Union pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 2223/96. As an organisation using public funds the Supreme Court was therefore to be considered a public administration body within the meaning of section 2(2)(c) of the Audit Act 2001. At the same time, it was a central authority within the meaning of section 2(2)(p) of the Audit Act 2001, as it administered part of the State budget. 41.  These matters did not affect the position of the Supreme Court as the highest judicial authority within the system of ordinary courts. The Supreme Court’s independence in that respect was ensured by constitutional and other legal rules, irrespective of how it was financed. The way the Supreme Court was financed and subsequent monitoring of how it used public funds did not therefore affect its independence as a judicial authority. 42.  The position of the Supreme Court as regards its administration and functioning was similar to that of other legal persons using public funds. The audit which the Ministry of Finance had intended to carry out did not therefore threaten the judicial independence of the Supreme Court, as it exclusively related to the way public monies had been spent and how State property was administered, including audit of the elimination of the shortcomings which had been identified in the course of the previous audit, in 2009. 43.  The Constitutional Court considered it irrelevant that the ordinary courts were of a different legal opinion as to the power of the Ministry of Finance to carry out an audit, and that they had quashed the decision by which the Minister of Finance had imposed a fine on the Supreme Court. 44.  In accordance with section 32(3) of the Constitutional Court Act 1993, the decision was taken by a secret vote. It indicated that for that reason judges’ separate opinions would not be attached to it. 45.  In respect of the above proceedings the applicant further submitted that one of the constitutional judges who had found him guilty of a serious disciplinary offence, Mr K., lacked impartiality. That judge had been an unsuccessful candidate in the election in which the applicant had been elected President of the Supreme Court. Mr K. had subsequently challenged that election before the Constitutional Court. The applicant had not challenged Judge K., as he had expected that the latter would withdraw, as he had in several other constitutional proceedings to which the applicant was or had been a party. 46.  In 2006, following a submission by two former employees of the Supreme Court, the applicant, in his capacity as Minister of Justice, ordered the Ministry of Justice to conduct a check of how the Supreme Court was complying with the legislation and regulations governing civil servants. The applicant initiated disciplinary proceedings against the then President of the Supreme Court, who had refused to allow the check to be conducted. The Constitutional Court discharged the President of the Supreme Court in proceedings filed as PL ÚS 97/07 (see paragraphs 94-98 below). 47.  In addition to the above submission of 18 November 2010 the then Minister of Justice made three other representations in which she asked the Constitutional Court to find the applicant guilty of serious disciplinary offences. 48.  In the representation dated 25 November 2010 it was imputed to the applicant that he had failed to ensure the allocation of cases to judges within the Supreme Court by means of random assignment. On 11 May 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the representation admissible (proceedings PL. ÚS 93/2011). It dismissed the Minister’s and the applicant’s requests for exclusion of constitutional judges on the basis of the same facts as in the disciplinary proceedings relating to the present case. The proceedings were stayed on 14 December 2011 pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Court on the present application. 49.  In her representation of 28 November 2011 the Minister of Justice imputed serious disciplinary offences to the applicant on six counts. They related to allocation of cases to judges. The Minister relied, inter alia, on the Constitutional Court’s finding of 18 October 2011, concluding that a party’s right to a hearing by a tribunal established by law had been breached as a result of a change in Supreme Court judges. 50.  In the context of the proceedings on that representation (PL. ÚS 116/2011) the Minister of Justice challenged three judges for bias. The applicant raised a similar objection in respect of five different judges. On 14 December 2011 the Constitutional Court excluded two of the judges challenged by the Minister of Justice and one of the judges challenged by the applicant (Judge H.). Those judges had been excluded earlier, in different sets of proceedings, because of their relationship with the applicant or their attitude towards him. It further dismissed the applicant’s request for exclusion of Judges K. and O., as no majority had been reached in the vote. Finally, it held that the other three judges challenged by the parties had not been shown to lack impartiality. The decision indicated that several constitutional judges had criticised the decision taken in proceedings file no. PL. ÚS 92/2011 not to exclude any of the judges challenged by the parties. The view was expressed that although the four judges who had been found to lack impartiality in earlier sets of proceedings due to their relation to or attitude towards the applicant were excluded from the proceedings filed as PL. ÚS 116/2011, the plenary session of the Constitutional Court would still have enough judges to decide on the Minister’s representation of 28 November 2011. Six judges joined dissenting opinions to that decision. On 11 April 2012 the Constitutional Court decided that it was not appropriate to stay the proceedings filed as PL. ÚS 116/2011. 51.  On 3 August 2011 the Minister of Justice initiated a new set of disciplinary proceedings, on the ground that the applicant had failed to lodge an appeal in the civil proceedings in which the first-instance court had ordered the Supreme Court, as the authority representing the State who was the defendant, to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the plaintiffs, amounting to one million euros (proceedings filed as PL. ÚS 6/2012). On 11 April 2012 the Constitutional Court, in a similar decision to that of 14 February 2011 in proceedings filed as PL. ÚS 116/2011, excluded Judge H. and two other judges, dismissed the applicant’s request for exclusion of Judges K. and O., and held that the three other judges challenged did not lack impartiality. On 25 April 2012 the Constitutional Court admitted the Minister’s representation and dismissed the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be stayed. 52.  The applicant further submitted a compilation of media articles and transcripts of broadcasts covering the period from 30 July 2010 to 19 June 2011. It is 101 pages long and relates mainly to the differences of opinion as to what authority should carry out the audit of the Supreme Court and the ensuing disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, including statements by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice. 53.  In particular, the applicant indicates a press conference on 18 November 2010 at which the Minister of Justice stated that she had initiated disciplinary proceedings, as she considered that by not allowing the auditors to carry out their task the applicant had acted contrary to the law. The Minister was persuaded that such an audit would not in any way undermine the Supreme Court’s independence. The audit concerned exclusively the use of public funds, and the applicant’s position cast serious doubt on the trustworthiness and functioning of the judiciary as a whole. The Minister of Justice stated that she had made the representation on the initiative of the Minister of Finance and also on the basis of information she had obtained from the files of the Anti-Corruption Office. Two articles published on 4 August 2011 quoted the statement “I consider that [the applicant] has committed a serious disciplinary offence” which the Minister of Justice had made when commenting on the representation she had made relating to the applicant’s failure to appeal against a first-instance judgment.