5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Ljubljana. 6.  The applicant was a member of the supervisory board of company A from 11 November 2013, with a four-year term. 7.  On 12 March 2014, the chairman of the supervisory board of company A resigned: following this the supervisory board had only three members (of the required statutory six members). 8.  On 20 March 2014, the Ljubljana District Court in Ljubljana adopted a decision on the initiation of “preventive restructuring” of company A (see paragraph 24 below). 9.  On 13 May 2014 a session of the supervisory board of company A was held. One of the members, T. H., proposed to extend the agenda with a point on the dismissal of the chair of the management board. Allegedly, physical violence occurred between the members of the supervisory board, as some of them did not allow one member to leave the premises, to maintain the required quorum. It would appear that a resolution was passed dismissing the chair of the management board. 10.  On 15 May 2014, a claim was brought before the Ljubljana District Court seeking to establish nullity of the supervisory board’s resolution of 13 May 2014. Company A agreed to the claim and the court consequently issued a decision annulling the impugned resolution. 11.  In the meantime, on 29 May 2014, company P, who held a 91.42% share in company A, filed a motion to deprive the applicant and another supervisory board member, T.H., of their membership, and appoint provisional members. The motion was lodged against the applicant and T.H., who acted as opposing parties (nasprotna udeleženca). Company P relied on, inter alia, section 276 (2) of the Companies Act (see paragraph 24 below) and grounded the motion on the allegedly unacceptable personal qualities of the applicant and T.H., referring in particular to the incident that had occurred during a supervisory board meeting on 13 May 2014 (see paragraph 9 above). It requested the court to proceed to a decision without delay, without notifying the opposing parties of the proceedings and without holding a hearing. In particular, company P argued as follows: the applicant’s and T.H.’s conduct was unacceptable and therefore they should have not continued with their four-year mandate; there were well-founded reasons for depriving them of their membership; their membership should be terminated immediately and they should be replaced by provisional members so as to ensure lawful functioning of the supervisory board and company A; though company P had enough shares to request the management board to convene a general meeting of shareholders this was impossible due to the uncertainty as to who was the company manager; company A was undergoing reconstruction and there were deadlines to be met in this connection; calling a general meeting would thus not ensure a sufficiently prompt response to the situation; and so the court’s intervention was necessary. 12.  On 4 June 2014 the Ljubljana District Court upheld company P’s motion. Referring to company P’s submissions and the case file in the proceedings concerning nullity of the resolution of 13 May 2014 (see paragraph 10 above) the court established that one member of the supervisory board had not been voluntarily present at the session of the supervisory board on 13 May 2014 (see paragraph 9 above) because of the conduct of the two remaining members of the supervisory board. In particular, it established that the applicant had clearly allowed T.H.’s conduct, had agreed with it, and had fully cooperated with her. The court explained that the law required that the supervisory board’s members act diligently and responsibly, and that this was particularly important in the present case, where company A was undergoing a process of “preventive restructuring”. It found that the conduct of two of the supervisory board members was harmful to company A’s functioning and that they should therefore not continue in their function until the end of their four-year term. It considered the case to be of an urgent nature, because company A was at risk, and the supervisory board with the applicant and T.H. as members was not in a position to perform its function until the first general meeting of company A. The decision also contained notice that an appeal was allowed against it within eight days of the notice of the decision. The court noted that the decision was effective immediately, and that any appeal would not stay its execution. 13.  On 5 June 2014 a journalist asked the applicant to comment on the aforementioned decision. According to the applicant, he received a copy of it only a few days later. 14.  On 24 June 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing, inter alia, that he had been unlawfully denied the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. He referred to, inter alia, section 4 of the Non-Litigious Civil Procedure Act (see paragraph 25 below). He also disputed company P’s allegations concerning his conduct during the incident of 13 May 2014 (see paragraph 9 above), and gave his own version of events. He argued that the court’s intervention was not called for and that no grounds had been given for his dismissal. He also emphasised that the protection of his reputation required that he be involved in the proceedings and able to submit evidence. 15.  On 3 July 2014 company P replied to the appeal, arguing that the case had been of an urgent character because it could have incurred losses had company A gone into insolvency. In its view, the impugned decision was a kind of interim injunction, and the adversarial principle could be ensured through appeal proceedings. 16.  On 5 August 2014 company P informed the court that, on 4 August 2014, company A had held an assembly and appointed two new members to replace the applicant and T.H. It invited the court to reject the appeal, because the applicant could not be considered to have any legal interest in its outcome. 17.  The applicant replied to the above pleadings on 25 August 2014. He argued that the supervisory board’s member’s dismissal at a general meeting of the shareholders could not be equated with the judicial termination of his term of office, because for the latter there had to be well-founded reasons, which had not been established in his case. 18.  On 3 November 2014 the applicant submitted examples of the domestic jurisprudence, with a view to demonstrating that the domestic law had required that he be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. 19.  On 21 January 2015 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal, finding that he could not have had any legal interest in the outcome of the proceedings because in the meantime company A had at its general meeting appointed new members to replace him and T.H. It noted that the appointment and dismissal of the members of the supervisory board, whose role it was to represent the interests of the shareholders, fell within the discretion of the assembly. The latter could dismiss supervisory board members any time during their term of office without having to provide any reason for doing so. Therefore, in the court’s view, even had the applicant succeeded in the appeal proceedings he could not have obtained reinstatement in his previous position. 20.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. Relying on, inter alia, Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, he complained about being unable to participate in the proceedings. He argued that had he had an opportunity to reply to company P’s allegations the court would have reached a different conclusion. 21.  On 10 November 2015 the Constitutional Court decided not to accept the applicant’s constitutional complaint for consideration pursuant to section 55b (2) of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 27 below). This decision was served on the applicant on 13 November 2015. 22.  A major Slovenian financial newspaper, Finance, reported the court’s dismissal of the applicant from its membership in company A’s supervisory board and the issues on which it had been based.