CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 7 February 2022   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 5074/20 and 39826/20 Miroslav TRIFUNOVSKI against North Macedonia and Goce JAKSHOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 15 January 2020 and 2 September 2020 respectively communicated on 18 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, former judges who had been dismissed due to professional misconduct, requested reopening of the proceedings for their dismissal on the basis of the Court’s judgment in Jakšovski and Trifunovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (nos. 56381/09 and 58738/09, 7   January 2016). In the resumed proceedings, the State Judicial Council (“SJC”) repeated its earlier findings regarding the applicants’ professional misconduct. Their subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Appeal Panel set up within the Supreme Court, which endorsed the findings of the SJC. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of impartiality and independence of the Appeal Panel, which was composed of nine judges (of whom three were Supreme Court judges, four Appeal Court judges and two judges of the court of each   applicant) whose careers were completely dependent on the SJC.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants’ cases considered by an “independent and impartial tribunal” as required by Article 6 of the Convention? In this connection, was the Appeal Panel set up within the Supreme Court in the dismissal proceedings impartial and independent in relation to the SJC, given the latter’s extensive powers regarding the careers of judges? In this connection the Government are invited to provide statistical information on the number of cases decided by the Appeal Panel in dismissal proceedings against judges and their outcome.