Article 8.1 of the Convention (private life)
Article 10.1 of the Convention (freedom of expression)

Regarding article 10 ECHR: Yılmaz and Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 68514/01, § 58, 17 July 2008; Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 140, 23 June 2016; Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and Others v. Switzerland, (dec.), no. 68995/13, § 72, 12 November 2019).

Regarding article 8 ECHR: M.M. v. the Netherlands, no. 39339/98, § 46, 8 April 2003; S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67;  Libert v. France, no. 588/13, §§ 40 and 42, 22 February 2018; ECHR 2008, Catt v. the United Kingdom, no. 43514/15, § 112, 24 January 2019).

The facts of the case must be placed in the context of the political conflict that pitted Catalan pro-independence supporters against the state institutions. In that context, a group of judges signed a manifesto in February 2014 supporting the constitutionality of a self-determination referendum. The manifesto, along with the name and photograph of the signatory judges was published in a national newspaper of national circulation and conservative tendency, "La Razón". In view of these facts, the “Manos Limpias” Union denounced the signatories for having violated the dignity of the profession, but the General Council of the Judiciary dismissed the complaint and considered that the signing of a manifesto did not constitute a disciplinary offense.

For their part, the undersigned judges also brought criminal actions. The judges argued that the data appearing in the newspaper were extracted from a national police file and, therefore, their publication required that a police officer had committed a crime of disclosure of secrets (article 197 of the Penal Code) and of infidelity in custody of documents (articles 413, 415 and 147 of the Penal Code). In the first judicial instance, the 15th Court of Instruction of Madrid rejected the case, but the judges appealed to the Provincial Court of Madrid, and in the second instance, the appeal was upheld, and the case had to be reopened. The Provincial Court considered that in the preliminary investigation phase insufficient evidence had been gathered to clarify the facts.

In the new investigation, the 15th Court of Instruction took statements from several policemen, but not from the Superior Chief of Police of Barcelona. The latter was not interrogated despite the fact that the Provincial Court had qualified his testimony as relevant to the investigation. The case was again closed. Although the judges again appealed the closure, this time, the Provincial Court first, and then the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeals. On the other hand, the Data Protection Agency also dismissed the appeals filed by the undersigned judges, considering that the Directorate General of Police complied with all the security measures set out in the data protection regulations.

The applicants allege a violation of Article 8(1) ECHR (right to privacy) on two grounds. Firstly, because the police made a report without a legal basis, and secondly, because the police facilitated the leak of the report to the press. The Strasbourg Court ruled that there has been a violation of Article 8(1) ECHR on the two grounds alleged by the applicants. First, because there was no legal basis to produce the report in the first place. According to the Court, the domestic law clearly states that the police can only draw up a report to investigate criminal acts, but the signing of a manifesto is not a crime. The Court also found a violation of Article 8.1 ECHR because the domestic courts did not conduct an effective investigation to establish the circumstances of the facts. The reasoning of the judgment states that the Spanish authorities did not collect evidence that would have been useful to clarify the facts and remedy the interference with the applicants' rights. In particular, the Court highlighted the fact that the Chief of Police of Barcelona was not called to testify. In that sense, the Chief of Police of Barcelona was not only the head of the Unit, but the person to whom the report was addressed.

On the contrary, the Court declared that there was no violation of ECHR 10.1, the right to freedom of expression of judges.  The applicants argued that the mere initiation of disciplinary proceedings for having signed a manifesto produced a chilling effect on freedom of expression. But the court denies this on two grounds. First, on the grounds of the body that triggered the disciplinary complaint against the appellants. In that sense, the General Council of the Judiciary did not act ex officio, nor at the request of a government authority, but at the request of a trade union. And, secondly, it rejects the appellants' claim, because the General Council of the Judiciary recognised signing of a manifesto was an exercise of freedom of expression of the judges concerned and closed the file in a short time-period. Furthermore, the Court added that the professional career of the judges was not harmed and that they even enjoyed promotions. 

Regarding article 10 ECHR: see Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and Others v. Switzerland, (dec.), no. 68995/13, § 72, 12 November 2019; Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 140, 23 June 2016).