CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sCDED223E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1EA6ED39 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEBD403DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:8pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB9F7F539 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA4D66361 { font-family:Arial; color:#0070c0 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s76C7ECA6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10.5pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF RIBAREV v. NORTH MACEDONIA (Application no. 39987/22)   JUDGMENT Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Applicant’s inability to appeal against the State Judicial Council’s (“SJC”) decision dismissing him from his judicial post following the remittal of his cases by a second-instance Appeal Panel • Art   6 applicable • Genuine and serious dispute over arguable civil “right” under domestic law to serve an unlimited term of office • SJC and Appeal Panel satisfied Art   6 §   1 “tribunal” requirements • Inability to ascertain the SJC’s compliance in the remitted proceedings with the Appeal Panel’s binding instructions issued when it quashed the dismissal decision • Strong public interest in upholding the rule of law and ensuring public confidence in the judiciary required such an assessment • Absence of any judicial mechanism capable for subsequent review practically rendered the first appeal before the Appeal Panel devoid of any meaning, undermining the effectiveness of the appeal process and weakening the practical guarantees of judicial protection under Art   6 §   1 • Very essence of right of access to court impaired   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 13 November 2025 FINAL   13/02/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ribarev v. North Macedonia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Péter Paczolay,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Stéphane Pisani,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   39987/22) against the Republic of North Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, Mr   Stojanche Ribarev (“the applicant”), on 3   August 2022; the decision to give notice to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) of the applicant’s complaints concerning his inability to appeal (after the remittal of his case) against the decision of the Judicial Council of the Republic of North Macedonia (hereinafter “the State Judicial Council” or “the SJC”) dismissing him from his post as a judge, as well as the manner in which the SJC applied the statutory provisions regarding the applicable time-limit for initiating the proceedings for his dismissal, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the withdrawal of Judge Jovan Ilievski, the judge elected in respect of North Macedonia, from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court) and the decision of the President of the Chamber to appoint Judge Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir to sit as an   ad hoc   judge (Article   26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule   29 of the Rules of Court); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 14 October 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s inability under domestic law to appeal against a decision of the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”) dismissing him from his post as a judge, following the remittal of his case by a second ‑ instance panel of the Supreme Court (“the Appeal Panel”), as well as the manner in which the SJC applied the relevant statutory provisions when accepting the request for his dismissal as having been lodged in time. The applicant complained of a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Shtip. He was represented by Mr A. Novakoski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. 3 .     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   D. Djonova. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 5.     The applicant is a former judge of the Supreme Court. Between 14   March and 25 October 2017 he was acting President of the Skopje Criminal Court of First Instance (“the Skopje Criminal Court”). He resigned from that position and returned to work as a judge at the Supreme Court. 6.     In his capacity as acting President of the Skopje Criminal Court, on 17   March 2017 the applicant adopted its 2017 annual work schedule, which took effect on 5 May 2017. 7 .     On 22   September 2017 the Minister of Justice established a working group on the functioning of the automated court case management information system (“ACCMIS”) and the implementation of the Rules of Court ( Судски деловник ) in the courts of the respondent State in 2016 and 2017. On 21 February 2018 the SJC received the working group’s record and report of 26 October and 20   December 2017, respectively, which concluded that there had been inconsistencies in the application of ACCMIS in the Skopje Criminal Court. 8 .     On 16 April 2018 the then President of the SJC established a commission consisting of three of its members, tasked with verifying the findings of the working group (“the Verification Commission”). On 18   December 2018 the Verification Commission submitted a report to the SJC, which did not identify any irregularities related to the 2017 annual work schedule of the Skopje Criminal Court. The report further stated that the mandate in the SJC of two members of the Verification Commission had expired on the same date (18 December 2018), but that additional inquiries were needed concerning the cases which had been distributed manually rather than through ACCMIS. On 7   February 2019 the SJC deliberated on the report and appointed two new members to the Verification Commission. 9 .     On 2 October 2019 the Verification Commission submitted an additional report to the President of the SJC, which established, inter alia , that cases had been allocated to certain judges of the Skopje Criminal Court contrary to ( надвор од ) the 2017 annual work schedule. On 25   December 2019 a member of the Verification Commission presented the report to the SJC. 10 .     In the meantime, on 12 December 2019, the Parliament appointed V.D. as a member of the SJC. Her mandate commenced on 27   December 2019. On 5 February 2020 she was appointed as a member of the Verification Commission. DISMISSAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT 11.     On 24   April 2020 V.D. requested that the SJC conduct professional misconduct proceedings against the applicant. The request stated that between 15   May and 3 July 2017 two judges of the Skopje Criminal Court had been allocated criminal cases, despite being assigned to its misdemeanour section on the basis of the 2017 annual work schedule. 12.     On 10 June 2020 the SJC established, by drawing lots from among its members (excluding V.D.), a three-member commission to examine the request for professional misconduct proceedings (“the Commission of Rapporteurs”), which on 27   August 2020 established that the request had been lodged within the six-month time-limit specified in section 61(1) of the SJC Act (see paragraph   34 below). The Commission of Rapporteurs found that the relevant period had started to run on 5 February 2020, when V.D., who had lodged the request, had become a member of the Verification Commission (see paragraph   10 above) and learned of the applicant’s alleged misconduct. 13.     On 4 March 2021 copies of the request for professional misconduct proceedings and supporting documentary evidence were served on the applicant. 14.     In a written reply, the applicant argued, inter alia , that the request for professional misconduct proceedings had been lodged belatedly, as the SJC had been informed of the relevant events when it had received the working group’s record and report of 26 October and 20   December 2017, and the Verification Commission’s reports of 18 December 2018 and 2   October 2019 (see paragraphs   7-9 above). 15.     On 24 March 2021 the Commission of Rapporteurs heard the applicant and V.D. and admitted documentary evidence. At the hearing, V.D. clarified ( прецизира ) the request for professional misconduct proceedings, submitting that between 15 May and 3   July 2017 five judges of the Skopje Criminal Court had not been allocated any misdemeanour cases, despite being assigned to its misdemeanour section, and had not been allocated any newly received criminal cases. The applicant stated inter alia that the amendments to the request essentially amounted to a new request. 16.     On 6 July 2021 the Commission of Rapporteurs prepared a report on the applicant’s case and submitted it to the SJC. 17 .     On 14 July 2021 the SJC held a session in the absence of V.D. The Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court, who were ex officio members of the SJC (see Amendment XXVIII to the Constitution, paragraph 32 below), did not attend either. The SJC established professional misconduct on the part of the applicant and dismissed him from his post as a judge. The SJC found that five judges from the Skopje Criminal Court had not been allocated any new criminal or misdemeanour cases, despite being assigned to its misdemeanour section, and had only worked on old criminal cases. The SJC confirmed that the request for professional misconduct proceedings had been lodged in time, given that V.D., who had submitted it, only became aware of the relevant events when she had become a member of the Verification Commission. It further found that the clarifications to the request had not changed its substance. 18.     On 9 August 2021 the applicant appealed against the SJC’s decision. 19 .     On 1 December 2021 the Appeal Panel, formed within the Supreme Court pursuant to section 72(2) of the SJC Act, upheld the applicant’s appeal and quashed the SJC’s decision to dismiss him after having heard him. It took into consideration the reports sent to the SJC dated 20 December 2017, 18   December 2018 and 2 October 2019 (see paragraphs 7-9 above). It concluded as follows: (i) the SJC had not provided sufficient reasoning as to the running of the time-limit for submitting the request for professional misconduct proceedings; (ii) the applicant had not had an opportunity to contest the clarified request; and (iii) the SJC’s decision had been unclear in respect of the grounds for his dismissal (namely, he had been dismissed from his post as a judge of the Supreme Court on account of his conduct in his capacity as acting President of the Skopje Criminal Court, even though the statutory grounds for the dismissal of a judge and a court president were different). 20.     On 9 February 2022 the Commission of Rapporteurs heard the applicant and V.D. again. On 23 February 2022 it submitted a fresh report to the SJC concerning the applicant’s case. 21 .     At a session held on 7 April 2022, the SJC once again dismissed the applicant. As the minutes of the session show, V.D., the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court were not present. The SJC found that, under the Skopje Criminal Court’s 2017 annual work schedule, the applicant had transferred to its misdemeanour section five judges who had previously worked on criminal cases. The head of the misdemeanour section had informed him that there was no need for any new judges. The five judges in question had not been assigned any new misdemeanour or criminal cases. They had only been formally removed from the criminal section in order not to be assigned cases initiated by the Special Prosecutor’s Office (for background on the latter, see Taleski v. North Macedonia   (dec.), no.   77796/17 and five other applications, §§ 8 et seq., 24   January 2023). On 3 July 2017, as soon as the deadline for the Special Prosecutor to file indictments had expired, the applicant had transferred the five judges back to the criminal section. The professional misconduct was committed while the applicant was acting as President of the Skopje Criminal Court, but it concerned his disciplinary liability as a judge. The time-limit for submitting the request for professional misconduct proceedings had started to run on the date when V.D. had become a member of the Verification Commission. Lastly, at the hearing held on 24 March 2021 the applicant had become acquainted with the clarified request. 22.     On 9 May 2022 the applicant appealed against the second dismissal decision of the SJC. He argued that the SJC had not complied with the Appeal Panel’s instructions when it had remitted the case. Furthermore, he claimed that the fact that an SJC decision after remittal was not amenable to appeal under section 72(6) of the SJC Act (see paragraph   34 below), amounted to a violation of his rights under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. 23.     On 21 July 2022 the SJC held a session in the absence of V.D., the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court, and rejected the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible, referring to section 72(6) of the SJC Act.   On 29 July 2022 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. 24 .     On 23 February 2023 the Supreme Court adopted a general position stating that, in deciding an appeal against a decision of the SJC issued after remittal, the Appeal Panel formed for the case could directly apply Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Amendment XXI (which amended Article 15, guaranteeing the right to appeal, see paragraph   26 below) and Article 50 of the Constitution (guaranteeing the right to judicial protection of rights and freedoms, see paragraph   27 below). It found that the inability to appeal against decisions of the SJC issued after remittal directly impacted the effectiveness of an appeal to the Appeal Panel and limited the right of access to a court. The reasoning of the general position referred, inter alia , to the international materials described in paragraphs   40, 42, 48 and 49 below. 25 .     On 6 March 2023 the Supreme Court requested the applicant’s case file from the SJC. On 14 March 2023 the SJC, presided over by V.D., declined to provide it. Consequently, at a plenary session on 27 March 2023, the Supreme Court adjourned the selection of members of a further second-instance panel (Appeal Panel) to decide the applicant’s appeals of 9 May and 29 July 2022 for an undetermined period of time (see paragraphs   22 and 23 above). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 1991 Constitution, as amended by the 2005 Constitutional Amendments 26 .     Amendment XXI, which replaced Article 15 of the Constitution, guarantees the right to appeal against first-instance court decisions and provides that the right to appeal or to another type of remedy ( правна заштита ) against individual decisions adopted at first instance by an administrative authority or another body performing public functions ( јавни овластувања ) is regulated by law. 27 .     Article   50 § 2 guarantees judicial protection of the lawfulness of individual acts of the State administration and other institutions which perform public functions. 28.     Amendment XXV, which replaced Article 98, provides, inter alia , that the courts are autonomous and independent, and that they adjudicate on the basis of the Constitution, laws and international agreements ratified in accordance with the Constitution. Extraordinary courts are prohibited. 29.     Article 99 and Amendment XXVI, which partly replaced it, provide that a judge’s term of office is unlimited in duration and ceases if the judge requests it, if the SJC decides that the judge is permanently unable to perform judicial functions, if the judge retires, if the judge is convicted and sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment, and (under certain conditions) if he or she is elected to another public office. A judge may be dismissed from judicial office if he or she commits a serious disciplinary violation, as provided for by law, which renders him or her unfit to perform judicial functions, or   if he or she exercises the functions of a judge in an unprofessional and unconscientious manner, under the conditions provided for by law. 30.     Under Article 100 § 3 and Amendment XXVII, judicial office is incompatible with membership in a political party or the exercise of another public function or profession as determined by law. Article   100 § 4 forbids political organisations and activities in the judiciary. 31.     Under   Article 101, the Supreme Court is the highest court providing uniformity in the implementation of laws by the courts. 32 .     Amendment XXVIII, which replaced Article 104, reads as follows: “[The SJC] is an autonomous and independent institution of the judiciary. [It] ensures and guarantees the autonomy and independence of the judiciary. [The SJC] is composed of fifteen members. The President of the Supreme Court ... and the Minister of Justice are ex officio members of [the SJC]. Eight members of [the SJC] are elected by judges from among their peers ... Parliament elects three members of [the SJC] with a majority of all members of Parliament (мнозинство гласови од вкупниот број пратеници) , which must include a majority of members of Parliament belonging to the non-majority communities (заедниците кои не се мнозинство) ... Two members are proposed by the President [of the State] ... and elected by Parliament... The members of [the SJC] elected by Parliament, and those proposed by the President [are] university law professors, lawyers or other prominent jurists. The members of [the SJC] are elected for a term of six years, with the possibility of re-election. ... The functions of a member of [the SJC] are incompatible with membership in a political party and with the exercise of another public function or profession, as determined by law.” 33.     The relevant parts of Amendment XXIX, which replaced Article 105, read as follows: “[The SJC]: - elects and dismisses judges and lay judges; -   establishes the termination of a judge’s functions; -   elects and dismisses court presidents; -   monitors and assesses the work of judges; -   decides on judges’ disciplinary liability; -   decides whether to strip judges of their immunity; -   proposes two judges of the Constitutional Court ... ... [The SJC] submits an annual report on its work to Parliament ...” State Judicial Council Act ( Закон за судскиот совет на Република Северна Македонија , Official Gazette no. 102/2019 – “the SJC Act”) 34 .     The relevant provisions of the SJC Act, as applicable to the applicant’s case, read as follows: Political activities ( политичко дејствување ) Section 3 “(1) Political organisation[s] and activities in [the SJC] are prohibited. (2) [The SJC’s] members, in the performance of its functions, shall not take part in partisan activities. (3) Through its work, [the SJC] shall prevent political influence over the judiciary. ...” Composition of [the SJC] Section 6 “(1) [The SJC] is composed of fifteen members, out of which: - the President of the Supreme Court ... and the Minister of Justice are ex officio members...; - eight members ... are elected by judges from among their peers ... - three members ... are elected by Parliament with a majority of all members of Parliament, which must include a majority of members of Parliament belonging to the non-majority communities ... and - two members ... are proposed by the President [of the State] and elected by Parliament ... (2) The ex officio members of [the SJC] shall participate in [its] work, without the right to vote. (3) The ex officio members of [the SJC] shall not participate in [the SJC’s] work at the sessions at which professional misconduct proceedings ( постапка за утврдување на одговорност ) or the appointment or dismissal of a judge or court president are being discussed and decided.” Term of office of members of [the SJC] Section 7 “(1) The term of office of members of [the SJC] elected by judges shall be six years, with the possibility of re-election after at least six years following the termination of the previous term of office. (2) The term of office of members ... elected by Parliament ... shall be six years, with the possibility of re-election. (3) The term of office [in the SJC] of the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice shall cease upon the termination of their functions. ...” Election and term of office of the president of [the SJC] Section 8 “(1) The work of [the SJC] is directed by its President. (2) The President ... has a Deputy, who acts in his or her stead during his or her absence. (3) The President ... and his or her Deputy shall be elected from among the voting members of [the SJC], who have been appointed by Parliament ... (4) The President ... and his or her Deputy shall be elected by a minimum of eight votes of the members entitled to vote. (5) The term of office of the President ... and the Deputy ... shall be two years, without the possibility of re-election.” Conditions for electing [or appointing] a member of [the SJC] Section 11 “(1) Any judge ... fulfilling the following conditions may apply to the vacancy notice for the election of a member of [the SJC] from among the judges: - [he or she] has at least six years’ experience as a judge; - [his or her] performance of judicial functions has been positively appraised; and - [he or she] has not, in a final decision in disciplinary proceedings, been subjected to a 15-30% decrease in salary that remains in effect at the time of the vacancy notice. (2) Any person fulfilling the following conditions may apply to the vacancy notice for the election of a member of [the SJC] on the proposal of Parliament: - ... - [he or she is a] lawyer with at least fifteen years’ experience in the legal profession, who has passed the bar exam and who ... has distinguished [him or herself] through scientific or professional work or ... public activity; ... - [he or she] has [the requisite] reputation and integrity for the performance of the functions of a member of [the SJC]. (3) At the proposal of the President of [the State], Parliament ... may elect a person as a member of [the SJC] who ...: ... - [is a] lawyer with at least fifteen years’ experience in the legal profession, who has passed the bar exam and who ... has distinguished [him or herself] through scientific or professional work or ... public activity; ... - has [the requisite] reputation and integrity for the performance of the functions of a member of [the SJC]. ... (4) In the cases referred to in subsections (2) and (3) above, a person who ... in the past four years has been a member of parliament or the government, or who has performed functions within a body of a political party, shall not be elected as a member of [the SJC]. (5) Members of [the SJC] elected by Parliament ... as well as those elected by Parliament on the proposal of the President [of the State], shall be selected from among university law professors, lawyers, former judges of the Constitutional Court, international judges and other prominent jurists.” Termination of the term of office of a member of [the SJC] Section 31 “(1) The term of office of a member of [the SJC] shall end: 1) upon the expiry of the term for which he [or she] is elected; 2) at his [or her] own request; 3) if he [or she] is dismissed from judicial office in accordance with the law; and 4) if he [or she] is [convicted and] sentenced ... to at least six months’ imprisonment, rendering him [or her unfit to perform the functions of an [SJC member]; 5) if it has been established that he [or she] has permanently lost the ability to perform his [or her] functions; or 6) if he [or she] is elected to perform another public function or profession. ...” Grounds for submitting a request for disciplinary proceedings against a member of [the SJC] Section 34 “(1) A reasoned request for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a member of [the SJC] may be submitted to [the SJC] by at least twenty judges or by any member of [the SJC] with the right to vote, if a member of [the SJC]: - influences the independence of judges and exerts pressure in relation to the adjudication of certain cases; - neglects and does not perform his [or her] functions in the work of [the SJC]; - refuses to submit a declaration of assets and interests in accordance with the law or if the data contained in the declaration are largely inaccurate; or - breaches the rules for recusal in situations in which the member of [the SJC] knew or ought to have known that there was a reason for recusal provided for by law. (2) A member of [the SJC] shall be dismissed from his [or her] functions on the grounds referred to in subsection (1) if the breach was committed: - with intent or obvious negligence on the part of the member of [the SJC] without justified reasons; and - the breach caused serious consequences.” Proceedings for deciding a request for disciplinary proceedings against a member of [the SJC] Section 35 ... “(6) The SJC shall adopt a decision to dismiss [its] member with at least eight votes from the members with the right to vote, with at least two members elected by Parliament ... voting in favour of the dismissal. (7) The ex officio members [of the SJC], the member whose liability is being decided and the member who has submitted the request for disciplinary proceedings shall not participate in the adoption of the decision referred to in subsection (6). ...” President of [the SJC] Section 40 “The President ... shall: - represent [the SJC]; - chair and direct its sessions; - participate in the work and decision-making of [the SJC]; - sign the ... acts of [the SJC] and ensure their enforcement; - ensure the enforcement of [the SJC’s] Rules of Procedure; - perform other duties as prescribed by law and the Rules of Procedure.” Equality of the members of [the SJC] Section 41 “The members of [the SJC] with a right to vote are equal in their rights and obligations in the performance of the function of a member of [the SJC].” Rights, duties and responsibilities of a member of [the SJC] Section 43 “(1) A member of [the SJC] with voting rights shall have the following rights, duties and responsibilities: - to participate in the work and decision-making of [the SJC]; - to submit initiatives, proposals and opinions on matters within [the SJC’s] competence; - to take part in the work of [the SJC’s] working bodies to which he or she has been appointed; - upon a decision of [the SJC], to inspect ( остварува увид ) a judge’s work and undertake other actions, and to report thereof to [the SJC]; - to be liable for any violation of the Constitution or law in connection with the performance of his or her function within [the SJC]; and - to perform other tasks as prescribed by this law. (2) The Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court, as ex officio members ... , shall have the same rights, duties and responsibilities as the voting members referred to in subsection (1) ... , except in cases provided for by this law.” Grounds for dismissal of a judge Section 60 “A judge shall be dismissed from judicial office: 1) for a serious disciplinary breach ( потешка дисциплинска повреда ), as provided for by law, which renders him [or her] unfit to perform judicial functions; and 2) for unprofessional and unconscientious performance of judicial functions, as prescribed by law.” Proceedings for establishing professional misconduct ( утврдување на одговорност ) on the part of a judge or court president Section 61 “(1) Professional misconduct proceedings concerning a judge or court president shall be initiated within six months from the date of discovery of the [misconduct] ( од денот на осознавање на сторената повреда ), but no later than three years from the date on which [it] was committed. (2) The proceedings shall be urgent and confidential, [and shall be] conducted without the presence of the public and by respecting the reputation and dignity of the judge or court president ... (3) At the request of the judge or court president, [the SJC] shall decide that the proceedings shall be conducted in public. (4) At the request of the judge or court president, a representative of the Judges’ Association may also attend the session.” Commission of Rapporteurs Section 63 “(1) Upon receiving a request [for] professional misconduct proceedings ... [the SJC], by drawing lots from among its members with the right to vote, shall establish a commission of rapporteurs (hereinafter “the Commission”), composed of three members, two of whom shall be from among the members elected by judges, and one of whom shall be from among the members elected by Parliament ... The president of the Commission shall be selected by lot from among [its] members. (2) [The SJC] member who submitted the request [for professional misconduct proceedings] ... may not be a member of the Commission. ... (4) The Commission shall reject the request ... if it is: - lodged out of time; ...” Gathering data and evidence Section 64 “(1) The Commission shall gather data and evidence ... for establishing the matters ( состојбата ) relating to the request. ...” Service Section 65 “(1) The Commission shall serve the request and evidence personally on the judge or court president, through the [registry] of [his or her] court ... or by registered mail to the home address. ... (3) The judge or court president may reply in writing to the allegations in the request or give an oral statement ... within eight days from the date of receiving the request. (4) The judge or court president ... shall have the right to be defended by a lawyer ... (5) Together with the reply to the request, the judge or court president shall submit all evidence in support of the reply. ...” Hearing ... Section 66 “(1) The Commission shall schedule a hearing within seven days of receiving the judge’s or court president’s reply to the request ... (2) The judge or court president shall be summoned to the hearing. (3) If the judge or court president duly summoned does not appear at the hearing and does not justify [his or her] absence, the hearing shall be held. (4) Evidence proposed by the person who has submitted the [request for professional misconduct proceedings] and by the judge or court president, as well as evidence obtained by the Commission, shall be presented at the hearing. (5) The judge or court president shall have the right to comment on all evidence presented at the hearing, orally ... or in writing within three days. (6) Minutes shall be drawn up of the actions taken at the hearing ... by a member of [the SJC registry]. (7) The minutes shall contain, in particular, information on: the date, time and place of the hearing, the president and members of the Commission ... the names of the persons present, the statement of the judge or court president or his [or her] counsel and the evidence presented. The minutes shall be signed by the applicant, the judge or court president, his [or her] counsel, the Commission and the person taking the minutes. (8) If any of the persons ... does not sign the minutes, [this] shall be noted therein. (9) During... the hearing ... an audio-recording shall be made. ...” Report of the Commission Section 67 “(1) The Commission shall submit a report ... to [the SJC] within fifteen days from the date of the hearing. (2) The report shall contain all files and documents that the Commission had at its disposal in the course of the proceedings, as well as the statement of the judge or court president and the description of the actions taken. (3) All files shall be made available to [the SJC’s] members.” [The SJC’s] deliberations ( расправа пред Советот ) Section 68 “(1) The president of the Commission shall present its report at [the SJC’s] deliberations. (2) The president and members of the Commission shall participate in the deliberations and vote on the decision. (3) If the request [for professional misconduct proceedings] was submitted by a member of [the SJC], he [or she] shall not participate in [the SJC’s] deliberations and shall be exempted from voting on the final decision. ...” Proceedings for deciding upon a draft decision [regarding professional misconduct] Section 69 “(1) At its session, [the SJC] shall deliberate on the report of the Commission ... and ... with at least seven votes from the total number of members with the right to vote, shall stay the proceedings if it determines that there are no grounds for [establishing professional misconduct]. ... (3) If [the SJC] does not stay the proceedings [and] establishes [professional misconduct] on the part of the judge or court president ... it shall dismiss [him or her] ... with at least eight votes from the total number of members with the right to vote. ...” Service of the decision Section 71 “(1) The decision [establishing professional misconduct] shall be prepared within ten days from its adoption and shall include an introduction, operative provisions, reasoning and a legal instruction. ...” Right to appeal Section 72 “(1) Only the judge or court president [against whom the professional misconduct proceedings were conducted] has the right to appeal against the decision of [the SJC] before a panel of the Supreme Court ... (hereinafter “the Appeal Panel”), within eight days from the date of service of the decision. (2) The Appeal Panel shall be composed of nine members, three of whom shall be judges of the Supreme Court ... one judge from each of the appellate courts and two judges from the court where the judge against whom the [professional misconduct] proceedings were conducted sat as a judge. The members shall be selected publicly by drawings lots at a plenary session of the Supreme Court, and of the [other] relevant court, within ten days from the date of receipt of the appeal. (3) The Appeal Panel shall decide the appeal no later than thirty days after being formed, assessing the legality of the proceedings ( законитоста на постапката ). (4) ... the Appeal Panel may confirm or quash [the SJC’s] decision in the event of a gross breach of the provisions concerning [professional misconduct] proceedings ( груба повреда на одредбите за постапката за одговорност ). (5) If the Appeal Panel quashes [the SJC’s] decision, the [latter] shall conduct the proceedings anew, in strict compliance ( задолжително почитувајќи ги ) with the instructions of the Appeal Panel. [It] shall adopt a decision and publish it on its website. (6) No appeal or [other claim] may be brought against the decision referred to in subsection (5). (7) The President of the Supreme Court and a judge participating in the proceedings before the SJC may not be members of the Appeal Panel ...” Right to a fair trial Section 74 “In the course of the proceedings before [the SJC], the judge or court president against whom the proceedings are being conducted has the right to a fair trial in accordance with the guarantees of Article 6 of the [Convention].” Relevant practice of the SJC 35.     In a decision dated 23 December 2010 the SJC found that the time ‑ limit for submitting a request for professional misconduct proceedings against a judge had started to run when it (the SJC) had become aware of the judge’s actions, which had occurred at the moment when it had adopted a decision allowing that judge to be detained. Relevant practice of the Supreme Court 36 .     The relevant general position of the Supreme Court, dated 23   February 2023, is described in paragraph 24 above. Relevant practice of the Constitutional Court 37 .     By decision U. br. 137/2019 of 25 March 2021 the Constitutional Court decided not to initiate constitutionality review proceedings concerning parts of section 72(3) and (4) of the SJC Act. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “ ... the statutory rules provide that[:] the right to appeal of a dismissed judge ... be exercised in proceedings at two instances; [that] at the second instance, a judicial body decides [the appeal]; [that] the decision of the second-instance body is binding; [and that] within the framework of the legality of the proceedings conducted by [the SJC], the [Appeal Panel] may assess questions related to [the facts of the case] and the application of substantive law. ” By decision U. br. 42/2022 of 7 September 2022 the Constitutional Court decided not to initiate constitutionality review proceedings concerning section 72(6) and parts of section 72(5) of the SJC Act. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “The right to appeal (and its intensity) stem from Amendment XXI to the Constitution, [in view of] the constitutional authority granted to [the SJC] to decide on the dismissal of a judge or court president[. It] presupposes that the right to a real and effective appeal ... must also be ensured [in the proceedings] before that body of the judiciary, without thereby violating the constitutional authority of [the SJC] to decide on the dismissal of a judge or court president. ... On multiple occasions the Constitutional Court has analysed the substance of Amendment XXI to the Constitution and taken the position that the guarantee of the right to appeal established therein concerns only a first-instance court decision, and [that] the right to appeal against individual decisions adopted in proceedings before a body of the State administration or a ... body performing public functions, is in a certain way relativised, that is, it is no longer a constitutional guarantee as it used to be, but the constitution-maker ( уставотворецот ) leaves space for that right to appeal to be regulated by law, such as in ... section 72(6) in the [present] case. ... The [Constitutional] Court finds that the [claimant before it] wrongly considered that [the SJC’s] decision to dismiss a judge ... is a court decision against which the right to appeal is guaranteed ...” 38.     By decision U. br. 46/2023 of 14   November 2023 the Constitutional Court decided not to initiate constitutional review proceedings concerning section 72(2) of the SJC Act, dismissing the claimant’s arguments that the Appeal Panel was an “extraordinary court”. Referring to its previous decisions (see paragraph 37 above), the court rejected, as substantially the same, the request to assess the constitutionality of, inter alia , section 72(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the SJC Act. By decision U. br. 66/2023 of 5   December 2023, the Constitutional Court rejected as substantially the same the Supreme Court’s request to assess the constitutionality of section 72(6) of the SJC Act. 39.     By decision U. br. 233/2020 of 7 March 2023 the Constitutional Court struck down section 8(3) of the SJC Act in its part providing that only a member of the SJC elected by Parliament (that is, a lay member of the SJC) could be elected its President. INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS United Nations 40 .     The United Nations (UN) Basic Principles on the Independence   of the Judiciary were adopted by the Seventh UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held in Milan from 26   August to 6   September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly Resolutions   40/32   of 29   November 1985 and 40/146 of 13   December 1985. The relevant parts read as follows: Discipline, suspension and removal “17. A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing ... ... 20. Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.” 41 .     In Report A/HRC/38/38 of 2 May 2018 the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Diego García-Sayán, made, inter alia , the following recommendations: Disciplinary proceedings “101. The responsibility for disciplinary proceedings against judges should be vested in an independent authority composed primarily of judges, such as a judicial council or a court. 102. ... 103. These authorities may include members from outside the judicial profession (lawyers, academics, members of civil society), but in no case should such persons be members of the legislative or executive branches. 104. ... 105. Decisions of the disciplinary body should be reasoned and subject to appeal before a competent court. ...” Composition of judicial councils and selection of their members “107. ... Active politicians and members of the legislative or executive branches of power cannot simultaneously serve on a judicial council ... 111. When members of the executive branch, for example the Minister of Justice, participate in the work of a council as ex officio members, appropriate measures should be developed to ensure their independence from any potential interference.” Council of Europe European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) 42.     In Opinion CDL-AD(2018)022, adopted in October