Judge suspended, to maintain public confidence in court system, after being prosecuted for offences presumed to have been committed in performance of former duties: Violation of the rights to a fair hearing & to respect for private life (ECtHR)

In Chamber's judgment dated 10.10.2023 in the case of Pengezov v. Bulgaria (application no. 66292/14) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned the insufficient extent of the judicial review carried out by the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Court held also that there had been no violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention as concerned the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Administrative Court, and a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life). 

The case concerned a judge’s temporary suspension from his duties on account of his indictment for irregularities allegedly committed in the performance of his former duties. 

The Court noted that following the applicant’s prosecution, he had been suspended from his duties as a judge, indefinitely and without pay, by a decision of the Supreme Judicial Council that had not been accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards. In that connection, it found that the scope of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judicial review had not been sufficient. 

Having regard to the length of the criminal proceedings (seven years) and to the absence of legal remedies for requesting that the suspension (which had lasted two and a half years) be lifted, the Court found that the applicant had been left in a state of uncertainty as to the duration of his suspension. Such a situation had also carried an inherent risk for the accused judge’s independence, which the Court had to take into account as well. 

Accordingly, the Court found that the applicant’s suspension from his duties had not been accompanied by adequate safeguards against abuse and had not been justified on relevant and sufficient grounds; it had therefore not been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (namely, guaranteeing the integrity of the judiciary and maintaining public confidence in the court system).

The Court held that Bulgaria was to pay the applicant 4,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,626.19 in respect of costs and expenses. (source: echr.coe.int)

The judgment is available (in French) here

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld her find
Read more

A notary does not breach the sanctions against Russia when he or she authenticates the sale of a property owned by an unlisted Russian company (ECJ)

Image
In tis Judgment in Case C-109/23 (Jemerak) [1] the Court of Justice ruled that a notary does not breach the sanctions against Russia when he or she authenticates the sale of a property owned by an unlisted Russian company.  By authentication, a notary does not provide legal advisory services, but acts independently and impartially in the context of a function entrusted to him or her by the State.  A notary in Berlin (Germany) refused to authenticate a contract for the sale of an apartment situated in Berlin and owned by a Russian company. According to that notary, it cannot be ruled out that that authentication infringes the prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services to legal persons established in Russia. The European Union introduced that general prohibition [2] in 2022 with a view to increase pressure on Russia to end its war of aggression against Ukraine [3] . The Berlin Regional Court referred questions to the Court of Justice on this matter. The Court replies that th
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whether the
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by those ban
Read more

First judgment of the ECHR: Lawless v. Ireland

Image
60 years ago, on 14 November 1960, the Court delivered its first judgment, Lawless v. Ireland, with René Cassin as its President. The judgment concerned preliminary objections and procedural questions regarding the application, on which a judgment on the merits was delivered the following year. Since its inauguration the Court has delivered 23,291 judgments on just over 51,650 applications. The case was filed by Gerard Richard Lawless, who had been an IRA member, although he claimed to have left the IRA. He was arrested on 11 July 1957, as he was about to travel to Great Britain from Ireland, and subsequently detained under the special powers of indefinite detention without trial under the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1940. The case was filed by Lawless for violation, by the Irish Government, of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights, providing rights to liberty and security, fair trial and the principle of 'no punishment without law'
Read more

Unreasoned decision dismissing objections by applicant who was imprisoned pursuant to judgment not concerning him violated ECHR: Judgement against Greece

Image
In Chamber's judgment dated 15.10.2024 in the case of Nsingi v. Greece (application no. 27985/19) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security / right to compensation) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compensation for having been imprisoned pursuant to a sentence that had been handed down in respect of a different person, for whom he had been mistaken at the time of his arrest.  On 6 June 2018 the applicant was arrested by the police and, after verification of his identity, was registered under the name of an individual who had been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for drug possession. The prosecutor ordered that he be sent to prison.  On 20 June 2018 the applicant demanded that he be released, objecting that he was not the person who had been convicted and sentenced. The Criminal Court dismissed the applicant
Read more