2002年1月22日，由另一组成员组成的法庭驳回了这一质疑。
On 22 January 2002, a differently constituted Court rejected the challenge.
2.22 2002年12月31日，提交人要求高等行政法院重新启动关于他的停职和革职的诉讼程序，声称存在程序上的违规情况，并侵犯了他接受口头审讯的权利。
2.22 On 31 December 2002, the author asked the High Administrative Court to reopen the proceedings concerning his suspension and dismissal, claiming procedural irregularities and a violation of his right to an oral hearing.
2003年2月27日，法院驳回了重新启动关于他的暂时停职的诉讼程序，称提交人有充分的机会以书面形式提交其主张，法院没有义务把他作为当事方审讯，或要求他进一步提交书面意见。
On 27 February 2003, the Court rejected the request to reopen the proceedings concerning his suspension, arguing that the author had sufficient opportunity to submit his arguments in writing and that there was no duty to hear him as a party or to ask him for further written observations.
2003年3月27日，出于同样原因，法院驳回了重新启动关于他的革职的诉讼程序。
On 27 March 2003, it rejected his request to reopen the proceedings concerning his dismissal, for the same reasons.
2.23 2000年1月1日， 2000年12月12日和2001年3月13日， 2002年3月4日， 提交人向欧洲人权法院提起申诉，称他在《欧洲人权公约》第六条下的权利，特别是在合理时间内受到公平审讯的权利遭到侵犯。
2.23 On 1 January 2000, 12 December 2000 and 13 March 2001, and 4 March 2002, the author submitted complaints to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging breaches of his rights under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular his right to a fair trial within a reasonable period of time.
法院处理了其中一些申请，比照Pellegrin诉法国案， 决定这些申请因属事理由 不予受理。
The Court joined several of these applications and rejected them as inadmissible ratione materiae, by reference to Pellegrin v.
France.
3.1 提交人宣称，纪律委员会的构成及其缺乏独立性，拒绝其关于在纪律委员会、纪律上诉委员会和高等行政法院前举行口头审讯的反复请求，纪律委员会和纪律上诉委员会的诉讼程序缺乏公开性，高等行政法院的诉讼程序长期拖延，以及从提起纪律申诉到启动纪律诉讼程序期间的拖延，侵犯了他根据《公约》第十四条第1款，单独及结合第二条第1款和第二十六条一并解读应享有的权利。
3.1 The author claims that the composition and lack of independence of the Disciplinary Commission, the rejection of his repeated requests for an oral hearing before the Disciplinary Commission, the Disciplinary Appeals Commission and the High Administrative Court, the lack of publicity of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Commission and the Disciplinary Appeals Commission, and the long delays in the proceedings before the High Administrative Court, as well as between the filing of the disciplinary complaint and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, violated his rights under article 14, paragraph 1, read alone as well as in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 1, and article 26 of the Covenant.
3.2 提交人认为，审理他案件的纪律委员会成员既不独立，也不公正。
3.2 The author submits that the members of the Disciplinary Commission trying his case were neither independent nor impartial.
根据《联邦公务员法》第九十八节第2款，纪律委员会成员必须与被告属于同一政府部门。
Pursuant to Section 98 (2) of the Federal Civil Servants Act, members of disciplinary commissions must belong to the same government department as the accused.
虽然该法第一百零二条第2款规定委员会成员“在行使职权时独立”，但是提交人认为这一假设纯属虚设，因为：(a) 审理该案的纪律委员会成员继续在审计总署署长的管辖下担任公务员，除了与纪律诉讼程序相关的事宜，均继续听从他的命令；(b) 他们和提交人是同事，职业生涯相同，与提交人争夺晋升机会，经常与他有工作上的来往；(c) 他们潜在地受到总署内部政治的影响，以及来自该纪律诉讼程序发起人的压力。
Although Section 102 (2) of the Act provides that commission members are “independent, while performing their duties,” the author considers this presumption a mere fiction, since: (a) the members of the Disciplinary Commission trying his case continued to serve as civil servants under the authority of the President of the GAO and continued to be bound by his orders, save in matters related to the disciplinary proceedings; (b) they were colleagues on the same career track as the author, competed with him for promotions and regularly interacted with him professionally; (c) they were potentially exposed to the internal politics within the GAO and to pressure from the very persons who had initiated the disciplinary proceedings against him.
3.3 提交人认为，纪律委员会主席对他有偏见，因为主席是总署内部负责审计上市铁路公司的部门的负责人，而提交人曾批评他购买定价过高的隔音墙，忽略其他选择，比如提交人的发明。
3.3 The author submits that the chairperson of the Disciplinary Commission was biased against him, as head of the section in the GAO that audits public railroad companies, given the author's criticism of the practice of purchasing overpriced soundproofing walls, while ignoring alternative solutions such as his invention.
Econtract曾经参与竞标的一个项目涉及一段铁轨的隔音问题，而这段铁轨恰好是由P. S.审计的上市铁路公司运营的。
One of the projects for which “Econtract” had submitted a bid, concerned the soundproofing of a rail track operated by the public railroad company that P.S. had audited.
提交人批评道，虽然他在“审讯一开始”，以及就纪律委员会1997年5月20日关于纪律审讯安排的命令向纪律委员会和宪法法院提出初次申诉时就对P. S.提出了质疑，但是直到诉讼程序结束时才换人。
He criticizes that, although he challenged P.S. “at the very beginning of the hearings” and in his initial complaint to the Disciplinary Commission and the Constitutional Court against the order dated 20 May 1997 of the Disciplinary Commission scheduling a disciplinary hearing, P.S. was not replaced until the very end of the proceedings, after the last formal hearing had taken place.
3.4 提交人认为，上诉机构未能在诉讼程序的早些时候替换P. S.侵犯了他受到独立和公正的法庭审判的权利，该等权利受到《公约》第十四条第1款保护。
3.4 The author argues that the appeals bodies' failure to replace P.S. earlier in the proceedings amounts to a violation of his right to an independent and impartial tribunal, protected by article 14, paragraph 1.
与普通工作人员不同，公务员的案件被拒绝接受普通法院审查这一事实违反了第二十六条。
The fact that, unlike the general workforce, civil servants were excluded from having their case reviewed by the ordinary courts constitutes a violation of article 26.
3.5 提交人认为，纪律委员会、纪律上诉委员会和高等行政法院以《欧洲人权公约》第六条不适用于纪律诉讼程序为由，拒绝他关于举行口头审讯的反复请求，侵犯了他依据第十四条第1款享有的接受口头审讯的权利。
3.5 In the author's view, the rejection of his repeated requests for an oral hearing by the Disciplinary Commission, the Disciplinary Appeals Commission and the High Administrative Court, on the ground that article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is inapplicable in disciplinary proceedings, violated his right to an oral hearing under article 14, paragraph 1.
在他的案件中，纪律上诉委员会和高等行政法院都不具备作为第十四条意义下的裁判所的资格，实际上也没有充当裁判所。
Neither the Disciplinary Appeals Commission nor the High Administrative Court qualified or acted as tribunals within the meaning of article 14 in his case.
纪律上诉委员会未经审讯就驳回了他的上诉，而高等行政法院的复审仅局限于法律问题。
While the Disciplinary Appeals Commission rejected his appeal without a hearing, the High Administrative Court's review was limited to questions of law.
3.6 提交人忆及，第十四条第1款提出了包括迅速审理在内的诸多条件， 不合理的程序拖延违反了该款规定。
3.6 The author recalls that article 14, paragraph 1, requires a number of conditions including expeditious procedure and that unreasonable procedural delays violate that provision.
他还忆及，高等行政法院花了七年多时间才就他反对开除他公职决定的申诉做出判决，构成了不合理的拖延。
He also recalls that it took the High Administrative Court more than seven years to decide on his complaint against the decision suspending him from office, which is unreasonable delay.
从1995年2月6日他提出申诉，到2002年7月17日法院第一次开庭，其间法院未采取任何行动。
No action was taken by the Court between 6 February 1995, when he filed the complaint, and 17 July 2002, when the Court held its first session.
没有任何补救办法来质疑法院的不作为。
No remedy was available to challenge the Court's inactivity.
3.7 提交人提出，纪律上诉委员会于1996年4月10日做出裁决，驳回他关于取消停职的请求，他就此提出申诉，高等行政法院花了六年半时间才做出判决，这构成了不合理的拖延。
3.7 The author submits that the six and a half years it took the High Administrative Court to decide on his complaint against the Disciplinary Appeals Commission's decision of 10 April 1996 rejecting his request to lift his suspension also is unreasonable delay.
从1996年6月7日他提出申诉，到2002年12月19日做出判决，其间法院未采取任何行动。
No action was taken by the Court between 7 June 1996, when he filed the complaint, and 19 December 2002, when judgement was given.