The Issue of Irremovability of Judges in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

The purpose of the article is to establish the standards developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights with regards to the principle of irremovability of judges. For this purpose, two categories of cases are analysed: those in which individual applications were lodged by participants of proceedings before courts composed of judges who were not sufficiently protected against arbitrary removal from office, and those where applications were lodged by the judges themselves. In the case of the former group, the problems related to the irremovability of judges are considered through the prism of Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The irremovability of judges is perceived by the ECtHR as a fundamental guarantee of the independence of a court - systemic deficiencies in this respect may therefore lead to a violation of Article 6. However, the ECtHR underlines the need to take into account not only regulations but also practice. Still, the protection against removal from office is not absolute and some exceptions in this regard are allowed. As far as cases initiated by judges' complaints are concerned, particularly important are Articles 6, 8, and 10. The first of them guarantees dismissed judges the right to a court - therefore, as a rule, it would be impermissible to remove judges without ensuring individual judicial review of the legality of removal. The ECtHR allows the exclusion of court proceedings in cases involving public officials, but only if such exclusion is provided expressly and is justified by the objective interest of the state. In the context of irremovability of judges, the latter criterion will be very difficult to meet. The two remaining provisions, Article 8 and 10, affect the substantive grounds for dismissing a judge from office. Therefore, it would be unacceptable to remove judges from their office as a repression for statements made by them falling within the limits of freedom of speech. The ECHR could also be violated if, in specific circumstances, due to the reasons or consequences of dismissal, it was considered a disproportionate interference with the privacy of a judge. 

The purpose of the article is to establish the standards developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights with regards to the principle of irremovability of judges. For this purpose, two categories of cases are analysed: those in which individual applications were lodged by participants of proceedings before courts composed of judges who were not sufficiently protected against arbitrary removal from office, and those where applications were lodged by the judges themselves. In the case of the former group, the problems related to the irremovability of judges are considered through the prism of Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The irremovability of judges is perceived by the ECtHR as a fundamental guarantee of the independence of a court - systemic deficiencies in this respect may therefore lead to a violation of Article 6. However, the ECtHR underlines the need to take into account not only regulations but also practice. Still, the protection against removal from office is not absolute and some exceptions in this regard are allowed. As far as cases initiated by judges' complaints are concerned, particularly important are Articles 6, 8, and 10. The first of them guarantees dismissed judges the right to a court - therefore, as a rule, it would be impermissible to remove judges without ensuring individual judicial review of the legality of removal. The ECtHR allows the exclusion of court proceedings in cases involving public officials, but only if such exclusion is provided expressly and is justified by the objective interest of the state. In the context of irremovability of judges, the latter criterion will be very difficult to meet. The two remaining provisions, Article 8 and 10, affect the substantive grounds for dismissing a judge from office. Therefore, it would be unacceptable to remove judges from their office as a repression for statements made by them falling within the limits of freedom of speech. The ECHR could also be violated if, in specific circumstances, due to the reasons or consequences of dismissal, it was considered a disproportionate interference with the privacy of a judge.