Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Gerovska-Popchevska v. North Macedonia (No. 2):
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a retired judge who was found by North Macedonia’s State Judicial Council (SJC) to have committed professional misconduct. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the proceedings before the SJC violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. Specifically, the ECtHR ruled that the SJC was not “established by law” because members of a commission that prepared a report on the judge’s case later voted on the SJC’s final decision, contrary to domestic procedural rules. Additionally, the ECtHR found that the applicant’s right of access to a court was violated because she was unable to appeal the SJC’s decision after her case was remitted for reconsideration.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter: the fairness of proceedings against a retired judge. It then details the facts, including the applicant’s background, the professional misconduct proceedings against her, and relevant domestic laws. The judgment addresses the scope of the case, admissibility, and then moves to the merits of the Article 6 complaint. The ECtHR examines whether the SJC was a “tribunal” and whether it was “established by law.” It concludes that the SJC was a tribunal but not “established by law” due to the composition of the SJC during the decision-making process. The judgment also addresses the applicant’s right of access to a court, finding a violation due to the inability to appeal the SJC’s final decision. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the composition of the SJC and the right to appeal. The ECtHR emphasized that the participation of commission members in the final vote of the SJC was a “flagrant violation of domestic law,” undermining the fairness of the proceedings. The Court also highlighted the importance of procedural safeguards in proceedings concerning the performance of judicial functions. The finding that the applicant’s right of access to a court was violated underscores the need for effective mechanisms to review decisions affecting individuals’ rights, even after a case has been remitted for reconsideration.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukraine, particularly in the context of judicial reform and ensuring fair trial standards. The principles regarding the composition of judicial bodies and the right to appeal are relevant to ongoing efforts to strengthen the independence and accountability of the judiciary in Ukraine.
