CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 janvier 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 192 January 2016 Jakšovski and Trifunovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” - 56381/09 and 58738/09 Judgment 7.1.2016 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Impartiality of State Judicial Council in professional misconduct proceedings against judges: violation Facts – In 2008 and 2009 respectively the applicants were removed from office as judges for professional misconduct. In their application to the European Court they complained that, in violation of Article   6 of the Convention, their cases had not been considered by an “independent and impartial tribunal” as two members of the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”) who decided on their dismissal had previously carried out the preliminary inquiries and initiated the impugned proceedings. Law – Article 6 § 1: Pursuant to the relevant domestic law, two members of the SJC (V.V. in the first applicant’s case and R.P. in the second applicant’s) had requested the SJC to establish whether there had been professional misconduct on the part of the applicants. In the first applicant’s case, V.V. had also conducted a preliminary inquiry to gather relevant information and evidence and had filed his request despite the fact that the lawyer who had prompted the initial intervention had subsequently withdrawn his allegation. The next stage in the proceedings was then conducted by an internal body of the SJC, which had considered relevant evidence and heard arguments by the applicants and V.V. and R.P. respectively. Having regard to the relevant domestic law, the Court could not but conclude that V.V. and R.P. had acted as “prosecutors” in respect of the applicants in this preliminary phase. Despite their role in the first stage of the proceedings, V.V. and R.P. had then taken part in the SJC’s decisions to remove the applicants from office. In the Court’s view, this cast objective doubt on their impartiality when deciding the merits of the applicants’ cases, which in turn prompted objectively justified doubts as to the impartiality of the SJC as a whole. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 4,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claims in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. The most appropriate form of redress would be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested. (See also Mitrinovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , 6899/12, 30   April 2015, Information Note   184 ; and Gerovska Popčevska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , 48783/07, 7   January 2016, Information Note   192 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes