TRIIAL CASE
Slovenia, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Up-1306/19-16, constitutional, 23 February 2023, ECLI: SI:USRS:2023:Up.1306.19
Deciding court: Constitutional court of the Republic of Slovenia
Topic: Independence, accountability, freedom of expression
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A
ECtHR jurisprudence: Article 10 (2) and Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights Handyside v the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, para. 49.Uj v Hungary, 19 July 2011. Mamère v France, 7 November 2006.Prager and Oberschlick v Austria, 26 April 1995.Axel Springer AG v Germany, 7 February 2012, para. 83.Pfeifer v Austria, 15 November 2007, para. 35.Nikula v Finski, 21 March 2002, para. 44.Skałka v Poland, 27 May 2003, para. 35.Perinçek v Switzerland, 15 October 2015, paras. 146, 154.Stoll v Switzerland, 10 December 2007, para. 101.Morice v France, 23 April 2015, para. 124.Pentikäinen v Finland, 20 October 2015, para. 87.Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Austria, 13 November 2003, para. 46.Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v France, 22 October 2007, 59. točkaMustafa Erdoğan and Others v Turkey, 27 May 2014, para. 42.Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v Portugal, 17 January 2017, para. 63. Witzsch v Germany, 13 December 2005.Hizb ut‑Tahrir and Others v Germany, 12 June 2012.ROJ TV A/S v Denmark, 17 April 2018.Romanov v Ukraine, 16 July 2020.Garaudy v France, 24 June 2003.Norwood v the United Kingdom, 16 November 2004. Pavel Ivanov v Russia, 20 February 2007. M’Bala v France, 20 October 2015.Belkacem v Belgium, 27 June 2017.Katamadze v Georgia, 14 February 2006.Palusinski v Poland, 3 October 2006.Williamson v Germany, 8 January 2019.Šimunić v Croatia, 22 January 2019.Lilliendahl v Iceland, 12 May 2020.
TRIIAL CASE
Slovenia, Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, VSRS judgment U 2/2023-28, supreme, 12 September 2023, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2023:U.2.2023.28
Deciding court: Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije
Topic: Independence, trust
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A
ECtHR jurisprudence: Tsanova - Gecheva v Bulgaria, App no. 43800/12, 15 September 2015.
TRIIAL CASE
Poland, Sąd Najwyższy (Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber), I NKRS 118/21, 12th January 2022, supreme
Deciding court: Supreme Court - Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber
Topic: independence, accountability
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A
ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A
TRIIAL CASE
Hungary, Budapest Administrative and Labour Court, 70.M.1051/2018/36, ordinary, 10 May 2019
Deciding court: Budapest Administrative and Labour Court
Topic: independence, accountability, impartiality, freedom of expression
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): No
ECtHR jurisprudence: No
TRIIAL CASE
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), CASE OF KÖVESI v. ROMANIA (Application no. 3594/19), Judgement dated 05.05.2020 (final as of 05.08.2020)
Deciding court: European Court of Human Rights/Romanian Constitutional Court
Topic: rule of law, freedom of expression, independence of prosecutors
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), CASE OF KÖVESI v. ROMANIA (Application no. 3594/19) is a follow-up of the Decision no. 358/2018 of the Constitutional Court of Romania that forced the Romanian President to dismiss Laura Codruța Kövesi from the position of chief prosecutor of the Romanian National Anti-Corruption Directorate. By Decision no. 358/2018, the Constitutional Court of Romania assessed that it existed a legal conflict of a constitutional nature between the Minister of Justice and the President of Romania, generated by the refusal of the President of Romania to put into practice the proposal of the Minister of Justice to dismiss Laura Codruța Kövesi from the position of Chief Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate and ruled that the President of Romania was due to issue the decree on the dismissal of Laura Codruța Kövesi from the position of chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate.
ECtHR jurisprudence: Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of
the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Role of Public
Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System, 6 October 2000, Rec(2000)19;The
Consultative Council of European Prosecutors in its Opinion No. 9
(2014) on European norms and principles concerning prosecutors of 17
December 2014.Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, 23 June 2016Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131Brisc v. Romania, no. 26238/10, 11 December 2018Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, 25 September 2018Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, 9 July 2013Efendiyeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 31556/03, 25 October 2007Gîrleanu v. Romania, no. 50376/09, 26 June 2018Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, ECHR 2008Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, 17 May 2016Kayasu v. Turkey, no. 64119/00, 13 November 2008Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, 23 October 2008Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, 26 February 2009Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, no. 184/02, 11 January 2007Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, 29 November 2016Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, ECHR 2015Nazsiz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 22412/05, 26 May 2009Nedeltcho Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 61360/00, 22 November 2007Özpınar v. Turkey, no. 20999/04, 19 October 2010Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, 6 November 2018Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, 19 September 2017Serdal Apay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3964/05, 11 December 2007Suküt v. Turkey (dec.), no. 59773/00, 11 September 2007Vilho Eskelinen and Others judgment [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IIVogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, 28 October 1999
TRIIAL CASE
Romania – Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) Case C-216/21 of 7 September 2023, ECLI:EU:C:2023:628 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Ploieşti - Romania) – Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ and YN v Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii
Deciding court: Court of Justice of the European Union
Topic: Rule of law, independence of the judiciary
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The national case is not the direct follow-up of a CJEU or ECtHR decision.
ECtHR jurisprudence: The ECHR jurisprudence was not referred to in this case.
TRIIAL CASE
Slovenia, The Ethics and Integrity Commission, Decision Su Ek 7/2023-10 of 16 January 2024 – Are retired judges bound by judicial ethics?
Deciding court: Ethics and Integrity Commission of the Judicial Council of the Republic of Slovenia
Topic: Independence, accountability, impartiality, freedom of expression
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A
ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A
TRIIAL CASE
Romania – Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) Case C-53/23 of 8 May 2024, ECLI:EU:C:2024:388 (request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti (Court of Appeal Piteşti, Romania), made by decision of 31 January 2023, in the proceedings Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’, Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’ v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Procurorul General al României
Deciding court: Court of Justice of the European Union
Topic: Rule of law, independence of the judiciary, Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, Benchmarks subscribed to by Romania, Fight against corruption, Investigations of offences committed within the judicial system, Action challenging the nomination of prosecutors with competence to conduct those investigations, Standing of professional associations of judges to bring proceedings
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The national case is not the direct follow -up of a CJEU or ECtHR decision.
ECtHR jurisprudence: The ECHR jurisprudence was not referred to in this case.
TRIIAL CASE
Poland, Supreme Court of Poland, II CSKP 556/22, Supreme, October 26, 2022
Deciding court: Supreme Court
Topic: independence, accountability, impartiality
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The case discusses and references decisions by the ECtHR as well as the jurisprudence of the CJEU. Specifically, the judgment mentions the ECtHR rulings related to the legitimacy of the judicial appointments in Poland and their impact on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary(e.g. Reczkowicz v. Poland, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o. v. Poland). Moreover, it also discusses the CJEU ruling that interprets EU law concerning judicial independence (Case C-487/19). However, while the Polish Supreme Court's decision in this case heavily references and is influenced by these European courts' decisions, it is not a direct follow-up to a specific CJEU or ECtHR decision.
ECtHR jurisprudence: European Convention on Human Rights:Article 6.The Supreme Court referenced several key ECtHR cases to underline the importance of judicial independence and impartiality in ensuring the right to a fair trial:Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application No. 43447/19, Judgment of 22 July 2021):The ECtHR ruled that the composition of Poland's National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), influenced by political powers, compromised judicial independence, violating the applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Applications Nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, Judgment of 8 November 2021):The Court found that the judicial appointment process under the restructured KRS did not adhere to the standards of independence and impartiality required by Article 6(1) of the Convention.Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (Application No. 1469/20, Judgment of 3 February 2022):The ECtHR determined that irregularities in the judicial appointment process undermined the applicant’s right to a tribunal established by law, as protected by Article 6(1) of the Convention.These judgments, as cited by the Supreme Court, highlight the importance of maintaining judicial independence and impartiality to ensure compliance with the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
TRIIAL CASE
Spain, Supreme Court, nº822/2023, 19 June 2023
Deciding court: Supreme Court
Topic: independence, accountability
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): NO
ECtHR jurisprudence: Article 6.1 ECHR
Project implemented with financial support of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship Programme of the European Union
© European University Institute 2019
Villa Schifanoia - Via Boccaccio 121, I-50133 Firenze - Italy