CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s66CE15DD { font-family:Arial; color:#242424 } Published on 13 February 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49303/20 Jovo VANGELOVSKI and Rahilka STOJKOVSKA against North Macedonia lodged on 27 October 2020 communicated on 23 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are former judges of the Supreme Court, the first applicant (Jovo Vangelovski) also being its President at the relevant time. Pending the dismissal proceedings against them, the State Judicial Council (SJC) ordered that they be temporarily suspended from office. The applicants’ appeals against their suspension were rejected as inadmissible by the President of the SJC, who found that the domestic law did not provide for a possibility to appeal against such decisions. The ad hoc Appeal Panel set up within the Supreme Court upheld that decision. Subsequently, the SJC and the Appeal Panel dismissed the applicants for professional misconduct in relation to a decision adopted upon a legality review request by the Public Prosecutor. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a lack of impartiality and independence of the SJC, as the first-instance body, and of the second-instance Appeal Panel set up within the Supreme Court, as well as the plenary session of the Supreme Court, in view of their composition and the alleged personal bias of some of their members, in the dismissal proceedings. They also allege a lack of access to court and insufficient reasoning.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 principles of independence and impartiality ensured in the dismissal proceedings (see Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , no. 21722/11, §§ 104-07, ECHR 2013, and the cases cited therein)? In this connection,   (a)     Can the SJC be considered an independent and impartial tribunal taking into account: (i) the allegations of pressure exerted by high political figures concerning the dismissal of the first applicant and (ii) the allegations by both applicants that K.Z. and G.S. (both members of the SJC) had been biased? (b)     Can the Appeal Panel set up within the Supreme Court in dismissal proceedings of judges be considered independent and impartial in relation to the SJC, given the latter’s extensive powers regarding the careers of judges (ibid., §   130)? (c)     Can the Appeal Panels set up within the Supreme Court in the applicants’ dismissal proceedings be considered impartial taking into account their allegations for bias of some of the members appointed in the said panels? (d)     Is Article 6 applicable to the proceedings before the plenary session of the Supreme Court for the appointment of members of the Appeal Panel? If so, (i) was the plenary session of the Supreme Court impartial taking into account the applicants’ specific allegations of bias of J.K. and L.N. (both members of the plenary session) (in view of the decision of the Supreme Court’s plenary session no. 20/2020 of 11 February 2020); and (ii) was the plenary session of the Supreme Court impartial and did it respect the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision when it was deciding (in view of the said plenary session’s notifications nos. 1/19 and 2/2019 of 9 March 2020) upon their requests for exclusion of some of the appointed members of the said Appeal Panels?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right of access to a court, as provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that their appeals against the decisions for temporary suspension were rejected by the President of the SJC and the Appeal Panel (see Paluda v. Slovakia , no.   33392/12, §§ 33, 34 and 40, 23 May 2017)?   3.     Did the Appeal Panels’ decisions contain sufficient reasons, in particular for departing from an earlier established practice (in view of the decision no. Su-Dov.br.18/2019 of 11 November 2019) concerning the applicants’ allegations that an old version of the domestic law provisions was applied in their case by the SJC?