1. Georgiana Iorgulescu Executive Director Center for Legal Resources
International and European Standards and best practices on the disciplinary liability of judges
Georgiana Iorgulescu
Executive Director
Center for Legal Resources
6/30/2019`1
FOOTER GOES HERE

2. Judicial independence and impartiality (art. 6 of the ECHR)
It is a prerequisite for the citizen’s right to a fair trial in front of an independent and impartial court
It is a citizens right not a personal benefit of the judge
Independence is not a privilege of a judge it is a benefit of the citizens

3. Guarantees for the independence of judges
The appointment of judges shall be made by an independent authority The length and the stability of their mandate shall Immovability be Financial security guaranteed

4. Consultative Council of European Judges, at its 11th plenary meeting (17-19 November 2010), adopted a Magna Carta of Judges Body in charge of guaranteeing independence
To ensure independence of judges, each State shall create a Council for the Judiciary or another specific body, itself independent from legislative and executive powers. The Council shall be composed either of judges exclusively or of a substantial majority of judges elected by their peers. The Council for the Judiciary shall be accountable for its activities and decisions.

5. Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities
Councils for the judiciary
27. Not less than half the members of such councils should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary.
28. Councils for the judiciary should demonstrate the highest degree of transparency towards judges and society by developing pre-established procedures and reasoned decisions

6. Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities
Liability and disciplinary proceedings 69. Disciplinary proceedings may follow where judges fail to carry out their duties in an efficient and proper manner. Such proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority or a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial and provide the judge with the right to challenge the decision and sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate.

7. European Network of Council for the Judiciary (ENCJ) Minimum Judicial Standards V on disciplinary proceedings and liability of judges
The body in charge of the judicial discipline could be the appropriate Council for the Judiciary (or a specific committee within the Council) or an independent national judicial discipline board independent from executives or legislature
The body should include a majority of judges and a judge expert in the jurisdiction and senior to the judge being investigated.

8. European Network of Council for the Judiciary (ENCJ) Minimum Judicial Standards V on disciplinary proceedings and liability of judges
In principle, there should be 2 separate bodies:
(i) to investigate and decide whether is a prima facie case:
Body or person= judge, panel of judges, a person answerable to the judiciary, or relevant Council of Judiciary
(ii) to adjudicate on disciplinary proceedings
it depends on the legal culture and traditions
N.B

9. Consultative Council of the European Judges, Opinion No
Consultative Council of the European Judges, Opinion No. 10 on the Council of Judiciary at the service of society
6.  The Council for the Judiciary can be either composed solely of judges or have a mixed composition of judges and non judges. In both cases, the perception of self-interest, self protection and cronyism must be avoided.
32.  Non-judge members should not be appointed by the executive. If in any state any non judge members are elected by the Parliament, they should not be members of the Parliament, (…) and should be persons affording, in the overall composition of the Council for the Judiciary, a diverse representation of society.

10. CASE OF RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL (2016) art
CASE OF RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL (2016) art.6 of the ECHR, referred to Grand Chamber
(a) Independence and impartiality of the authorities hearing the case In order to establish whether a tribunal can be considered to be “independent” regard must be had, inter alia, to the manner of appointment of its members and their term of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence. (b) Insufficient review conducted by the Supreme Court of Justice (c) Lack of a public hearing

11. CASE OF Kamenos v. Cyprus art.6 of the ECHR (2017)
Complained under art. 6 § 1 he had been charged and tried by the same judges (lack of impartiality) from Supreme Court
“In such a situation, confusion between the functions of bringing charges and those of determining the issues in the case could objectively justified fears as to the SCJ’s impartiality.”