Judges

Disciplinary sanction of non-promotion of a judge for harsh articles against the President of the Supreme Court. Accusations without proof. No violation of the right to freedom of expression

JUDGMENT
Panioglu v. Romania 08.12.2020 (app. no. 33794/14)
Judges and freedom of expression. Official sanctions against a judge, in particular concerning promotion, due to an article she had written in the press.
The applicant wrote an article in the press entitled “Nothing about how a Comrade Prosecutor has become president of all the judges”. In it she harshly criticized the activities of the President of the Court of Cassation during the period of the oppressive communist regime, whenever she worked as a Prosecutor. She wondered how the “Comrade Prosecutor” had acted to “uproot the enemies of the socialist class” and to “chase” women who had had an abortion. . She spoke of the “dungeons” and “poverty” under the regime and the prosecutors “somewhere above in an untouchable shining world … All these
comrades, usurpers of Christ and His Law, sternly guard[ing] the communist prison”. She spoke about living in grinding poverty while “the Comrade Prosecutor ha[d] also floated above”.

read more

Participation of a judge illegally appointed by the Minister of Justice in an appellate court. Violation of the right of access to a court established by law

GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT
Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland 01.12.2020 (app. no. 26374/18)
The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that the new Icelandic Court of Appeal (Landsréttur)
which had upheld his conviction for road traffic offences was not “a tribunal established by law”, on
account of irregularities in the appointment of one of the judges who heard his case.
Given the potential implications of finding a violation and the important interests at stake, the Court
took the view that the right to a “tribunal established by law” should not be construed too broadly
such that any irregularity in a judicial appointment procedure would risk compromising that right.
It thus formulated a three-step test to determine whether irregularities in a judicial appointment
procedure were of such gravity as to entail a violation of the right to a tribunal established by law. It
then proceeded to find as follows.

read more

A judge has tried the same parties three times for the same facts. The same judge also rejected his request for exclusion! Conviction for bias!

JUDGMENT Mikhail Mironov v. Russia 06.10.2020 (app. no. 58138/09) see here   SUMMARY Judge impartiality. Fair trial. Objection of bias. A judge tried one criminal and two civil cases between the same parties and for the same facts. He also adjudicated his objection of exclusion and rejected it. A judge has tried the same parties three […]

read more

A judge described his inspection report as biased. His disciplinary conviction violated his freedom of expression. Right to be criticized by those audited in the reports of the higher courts

JUDGMENT Guz v. Poland 15.10.2020 (app. no. 965/12) see here  SUMMARY Criticism of his inspection report by a judge. Disciplinary condemnation for the applicant’s expressions. His disciplinary conviction is a Violation of the judge’s freedom of expression. The applicant, a judge, was not promoted following the negative inspection report prepared by the Inspector Judge and […]

read more
φυλακές

Detention of the mayor for 4 days without appearing in court. Search in his office without a warrant. Violation of privacy and the right to liberty and security

JUDGMENT Marin Yosifov v. Bulgaria 13.10.2020 (app. no. 5113/11) see here SUMMARY The case concerns criminal proceedings for corruption brought against a mayor. The applicant complained of being detained for four days (for 24 hours on police orders and for a further 72 hours on an order of the public prosecutor) without being brought before […]

read more

The disciplinary penalty of demotion to a Senior Prosecutor for a misdemeanor investigation into a sexual abuse case did not violate the Convention.

JUDGMENT Čivinskaitė v. Lithuania 15.09.2020 (app. no. 21218/12) see here SUMMARY The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, a senior prosecutor, for failing to carry out her duties properly in a high-profile investigation into the alleged sexual abuse of a child. The proceedings led to her demotion. Her case before the European Court dealt […]

read more

Establishment of a non-renewable term for judges of the Constitutional Court of Armenia. The ECtHR refuses to issue interim measures.

JUDGMENT REGARDING INTERIM MEASURES Gyulumyan and others v. Armenia 08.07.2020 (no.  25240/20) SUMMARY  Non-renewable term in the constitutional court and the need to take interim measures due to impending irreparable damage to judges. In 2015, the Constitution of Armenia was revised, introducing a 12-year non-renewable term for the judges of the Constitutional Court and establishing […]

read more
φυλακές

Personal space in a cell from 1.72 to 2.76m consists of inhumane treatment. The act of a judge who reduced the defendant’s sentence did not consists lack of impartiality

JUDGMENT George-Laviniu  Ghiurău v. Romani 16.06.2020 (no.  15549/16) see here  SUMMARY Prison conditions. Fair trial, impartiality of judges and examination of witnesses. The applicant was sentenced to 2 years in prison for severe bodily harm. He appealed to Strasbourg, complaining of inadequate detention conditions, a lack of impartiality of judges in the second instance and […]

read more

Disbarrement of a lawyer by a bar association because he criticized a public judge for tarnishing the reputation of the judiciary. Violation of freedom of expression and privacy.

JUDGMENT Bagirov v. Azerbaijan  25.06.2020 (no. 81024/12 and 28198/15) see here  SUMMARY Disbarrement of a lawyer by a Bar Association. Lawyer’s confidentiality duty. Freedom of expression and the right to privacy. The applicant, a lawyer by profession, disclosed the cause of death of his client’s son. He was suspended from practising law for one year, for […]

read more

Journalistic criticism of judges. The conviction of a journalist into payment of damages violated the freedom of expression. The criterion for the amount of compensation is the basic monthly salary.

JUDGMENT Tolmachev v. Russia 02.06.2020 (no. 42182/11) see here   SUMMARY Journalistic criticism of judges and freedom of expression. The awarded damages must take into account the financial situation of the defendant. The plaintiff is a journalist who, through three articles in a newspaper and magazine, criticized judges for their behavior and the way they acted. […]

read more
ECHRCaseLaw

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Decline all Services
Accept all Services