CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA875FB86 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 28 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 16358/18 and 34964/18 Mart ANGERJÄRV against Estonia and Maksim GREINOMAN against Estonia lodged on 2 April 2018 and 20 July 2018 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicants’ inability to challenge the court orders by which they were held in contempt of court and removed as representatives from the court proceedings. The applicants were lawyers who represented their clients before the County Court in separate sets of civil proceedings. After both applicants’ petitions for the respective judges to be removed from hearing the cases were refused, the judges decided to remove the applicants from the proceedings as a means of securing proper conduct of justice. Mr Angerjärv was found to have acted in an improper manner at a hearing, expressed contempt of court, was incompetent and acted in bad faith; Mr Greinoman was found to have been dishonest, repeatedly lodging defamatory statements against the judge, and irresponsible which obstructed the expeditious hearing of the case. The decisions were forwarded to the National Bar Association. The following disciplinary proceedings were, however, discontinued due to lack of grounds for a disciplinary offence. Under the domestic law the applicants did not have the right to challenge the decisions on removing them from the proceedings. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention about the inability to challenge the decisions holding them in contempt of court and removing them from the court proceedings.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the present cases? If so, has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to access to court and the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal? If there has been an interference, then were the limitations compatible with Article 6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private or professional life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of holding them in contempt of court and removing from the civil proceedings as representatives of the parties? If so, was the interference compatible with the requirements of Article 8 § 2 and were there any procedural safeguards available to the applicants?     APPENDIX   1.     Application no. 16358/18 Mart ANGERJÄRV is an Estonian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Tallinn. 2.     Application no. 34964/18 Maksim GREINOMAN is an Estonian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Tallinn.