PANIOGLU v. ROMANIA - 33794/14 (Judgment : Preliminary objection dismissed : Fourth Section) [2020] ECHR 860 (08 December 2020)

PANIOGLU v. ROMANIA - 33794/14 (Judgment : Preliminary objection dismissed : Fourth Section) [2020] ECHR 860 (08 December 2020)

The Court found that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, and was proportionate. The interpretation of the Code was reasonable and foreseeable for a judge with the applicant's experience. The penalty, while recorded in her professional file and considered in promotions, did not prevent her from participating in competitions and was not excessive. The balance between freedom of expression and the interests of the judiciary was maintained.

Citation
[2020] ECHR 860
Parties
Applicant: Daniela Panioglu; Respondent: Romanian Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
08 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment on Merits by European Court of Human Rights
Outcome
No violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Judicial Conduct, Proportionality of Sanctions, Foreseeability of Law
Human Rights Law Judicial Ethics Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Judicial Conduct Proportionality of Sanctions Foreseeability of Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniela Panioglu

Applicant

Romanian Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment on Merits by European Court of Human Rights

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the code-of-conduct penalty imposed on a judge for publishing an article about a fellow judge's integrity violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.
  2. 2 Whether Article 18 § 2 of the Code of Conduct for Judges was sufficiently clear and foreseeable to justify the interference with freedom of expression.
  3. 3 Whether the penalty imposed was proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, and was proportionate. The interpretation of the Code was reasonable and foreseeable for a judge with the applicant's experience. The penalty, while recorded in her professional file and considered in promotions, did not prevent her from participating in competitions and was not excessive. The balance between freedom of expression and the interests of the judiciary was maintained.

Court Disposition

No violation of Article 10 of the Convention.