CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 30 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s37839E0D { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE70B54AF { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE4EB4F8C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6FC64B9D { width:2.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s67926A7A { width:113.96pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s6B737D45 { width:205.46pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF FRANZ v. GERMANY (Application no. 29295/16)     JUDGMENT     Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Independent and impartial tribunal • Dispute between a notary and the President of the Court of Appeal assigned to the notary senate of that same Court of Appeal • Influence of the President on the composition of the notary senate not negligible • President’s involvement in disciplinary and promotion decisions concerning judges of the notary senate • Sufficient review by Federal Court of Justice     STRASBOURG 30 January 2020   FINAL   30/05/2020   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Franz v. Germany, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,   Angelika Nußberger,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki,   Síofra O’Leary,   Lәtif Hüseynov,   Lado Chanturia, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 29295/16) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Mr Friedrich-Carl Franz (“the applicant”), on 20 May 2016. 2.     The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr H.-J. Behrens of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. 3.     The applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that, in proceedings concerning the revocation of the conferral of the office of notary on him, the Court of Appeal had not been an independent and impartial tribunal. 4.     On 3   November 2017 notice of the complaint concerning Article   6 §   1 of the Convention was given to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule   54 §   3 of the Rules of Court. 5.     Written submissions were received from the Federal Chamber of German Civil Law Notaries ( Bundesnotarkammer ), which had been granted leave to intervene as a third party (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule   44 § 2 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Lüneburg. In 1986 he was admitted as a lawyer. In 1997 the President of the Celle Court of Appeal conferred the office of notary upon him. 7.     On 9 August 2012 the President of the Celle Court of Appeal suspended the applicant from his office as a notary on a preliminary basis. Subsequently, the applicant challenged the preliminary suspension before the Celle Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Justice without success. 8.     On 12 February 2013 the President of the Celle Court of Appeal confirmed the definitive removal of the applicant from his office as a notary. He referred to section 50 (1) point 8 of the Federal Notary Act (see paragraph 20 below). The decision was signed by H., who was the Vice ‑ President of the Celle Court of Appeal at the time, as representative of the President ( in Vertretung ). 9.     On 15 March 2013 the applicant filed an application for annulment ( Anfechtungsklage ) of the decision of 12 February 2013 with the Celle Court of Appeal in its capacity as a first-instance court. The application was subsequently assigned to the so-called “notary senate” at that court (see paragraphs 24-26 below). In his submissions, the applicant objected, inter alia , to the Celle Court of Appeal having jurisdiction on the basis that it belonged to the ordinary court branch and the challenged decision had been issued by the President of that court. He claimed that the matter would be more suitable for the administrative court branch, which had general jurisdiction over disputes between the administration and a private individual. 10.     On 22 May 2013 the notary senate of the Celle Court of Appeal decided in advance on its jurisdiction. It held that the ordinary court had jurisdiction in relation to the application, referring in their reasoning to section 111 of the Federal Notary Act (see paragraphs 24 and 25 below), and that the proceedings would therefore not have to be relinquished to an administrative court. 11.     On 19 August 2013 the applicant lodged complaints of bias in respect of the ordinary members of the notary senate, i.e. the presiding judge, the associate judge and the notary judge. On 21 August 2013 he lodged separate complaints of bias in respect of two other judges of the Court of Appeal who were the substitutes of the presiding judge of the notary senate. They were the judges responsible to decide on the complaints of bias against the presiding judge and would have also replaced the presiding judge and each other in the event of bias. On 14 October 2013 the applicant lodged a further complaint of bias in respect of judge K. who was the third substitute of the presiding judge. In each and every one of those complaints of bias, he referred to the close personal and professional ties of the defendant President of the Celle Court of Appeal with the judges deciding his case, as well as to the fact that the defendant President was the disciplinary superior of those judges, which put into question their independence and neutrality. 12.     On 8 November 2013 the Court of Appeal, sitting in a composition of judge K, an associate judge and a notary judge, who both had not been involved earlier, rejected the complaints of bias as inadmissible because the applicant had failed to substantiate the facts in a sufficiently specific manner. The applicant had not given specific reasons relating to the person of the challenged judges, but had only generally referred to structural entanglements relating to all of the judges at the same Court of Appeal as the defendant in the proceedings. After the mandate of the two substitute judges had ended, judge K. was the designated substitute to preside over the panel reaching that decision. Even though judge K. had been one of the judges about whom the complaints of bias were made, the panel found that he was allowed to participate in the panel because the reasons in the complaints were completely ill-suited. 13.     On 3 March 2014, after having conducted a hearing on the same day, the Court of Appeal, sitting in a composition of the ordinary members of the notary senate, i.e. the initial presiding judge, associate judge and notary judge, rejected the applicant’s legal challenge. The court held that the provision applied in relation to the applicant’s removal, section 50 (1) point   8 of the Federal Notary Act (see paragraph 20 below), was, taking account of the case-law clarifying it, sufficiently precise. According to that provision, a notary must be removed from office if his economic circumstances, the manner of his business administration or his conduct regarding deposits jeopardise the interests of users of legal services. The provision did not require fault. It was also not a requirement for a notary to have violated a particular obligation to treat a deposit in a particular way in the past. Rather, it was sufficient that a notary gave the impression of not being trustworthy in this connection. This was, for example, the case if a creditor had to apply for enforcement measures against a notary in relation to an undisputed obligation. Even if an enforcement measure appeared to be invalid, a notary would be obliged to pay and could only challenge the validity of the measures in subsequent reimbursement proceedings. The court concluded, after having listed and examined numerous enforcement measures against the applicant, that he had been the subject of such measures forty-six times in the course of roughly ten years, mostly for minor amounts of up to 3,000 euros (EUR), but on one occasion also for 565,000 German Marks – on the whole that gave sufficient cause to remove him from office. 14.     On 23 April 2014 the applicant applied to the Federal Court of Justice for leave to appeal. He alleged in particular a violation of his right to a lawful judge as guaranteed by Article 101 § 1 sentence 2 of the Basic Law (see paragraph 23 below). He did not challenge the existence of the enforcement measures as such, but insisted that he had ultimately paid his debts. In respect of two enforcement measures he challenged their legal basis. He argued that one claim had only been become enforceable after appeal proceedings and the amount of another claim of 268.50 euros had been established incorrectly. With regard to the application of section 50 (1) point 8 of the Federal Notary Act, he argued that he had not caused a real risk to the interests of his clients. Furthermore, ten-year-old enforcement measures were not a valid basis to conclude that he could not be expected to change his business conduct. Finally, his removal from office was disproportionate. 15.     On 24 November 2014 the Federal Court of Justice rejected the application for leave to appeal as ill-founded. It held that the applicant’s right to a lawful judge as guaranteed by Article 101 § 1 sentence 2 of the Basic Law (see paragraph 23 below) had not been violated, because assigning disputes between a notary and a President of a Court of Appeal to that Court of Appeal was generally compatible with the constitutional guarantees. Also, the composition of the notary senate did not give rise to doubts regarding its impartiality. The applicant was wrong in claiming that the President, as member of the executive committee ( Präsidium ), could easily replace judges in the notary senate, because those judges were appointed for a period of five years (see paragraphs 28 and 30). 16.     It furthermore held that there were no serious doubts regarding the correctness of the judgment ( ernstliche Zweifel an der Richtigkeit des Urteils ). In this context, it found that the applicant had not plausibly challenged the Court of Appeal’s finding of facts. It further reiterated its earlier findings of its decision concerning the preliminary suspension of the applicant (see paragraph 7 above). It found that pursuant to section 50 (1) point 8 of the Federal Notary Act (see paragraph 20 below) a notary must be removed from office if his manner of business administration obliged creditors of legally acknowledged claims to apply for enforcement measures against him. The reasons for these measures were immaterial because it was neither necessary that such measures stemmed from financial problems of the notary nor did it require fault. Thus, the very existence of such measures was sufficient. In the past, the applicant had been the subject of forty-six enforcement measures, of which twenty-six had been adopted in the last four years prior to his definitive removal from office. Moreover, relying on written information from the tax authorities, that the Federal Court of Justice had obtained on 13 September 2013, the applicant had also not complied with his tax obligations. Further, the Court of Appeal had not been obliged to verify whether the applicant’s conduct had caused a real risk because an abstract risk to the interests of the users of legal services was sufficient. The court concluded that the definite removal from office was proportionate because the applicant had not changed his conduct despite numerous warnings. 17.     The applicant subsequently filed a complaint concerning a violation of his right to be heard which the Federal Court of Justice dismissed on 24 August 2015. 18.     The applicant then filed a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court, in which he again relied on his constitutional right to a lawful judge. On 17 November 2015, the Federal Constitutional Court refused to adjudicate on the complaint, without providing reasons (1   BvR   2652/15). RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE Removal of notaries from office Federal Notary Act 19.     Under the Federal Notary Act, notaries are appointed as independent holders of a public office to authenticate legal transactions and perform other tasks in the administration of non-contentious justice. Under section 3 of the Federal Notary Act they are appointed for life, to exercise their office as their primary occupation. 20.     Disciplinary measures against notaries are taken by the supervising authority – the president of the Court of Appeal of the relevant court district – in respect of specific acts committed in violation of a specific obligation. Disputes arising out of the use of those measures are considered to be disciplinary disputes under the Federal Notary Act. Apart from disciplinary powers, the Federal Notary Act also provides for preventive powers in respect of notaries and their conduct, which do not require the violation of a specific obligation but which, generally speaking, require some sort of risk to third parties to have been established. Disputes arising from such measures are considered to be public law disputes under the Federal Notary Act. In this respect, the relevant parts of section 50 of the Federal Notary Act reads as follows: “(1) A notary shall be removed from office: ... 8. if his economic circumstances, the manner of his business administration or his conduct of depository transactions jeopardise the interests of users of legal services; ...” 21.     Section 50 (3) of the Federal Notary Act vests the competence for a notary’s removal from office in the justice administration of the Land . Section 112 of the Act grants the Länder the right to confer the duties and powers which are vested in the justice administration of each Land on inferior authorities. Law of the Land of Lower Saxony 22.     The Land of Lower Saxony made use of that possibility in a regulation concerning Responsibilities in the Fields of Jurisdiction and Administration of Justice ( Verordnung zur Regelung von Zuständigkeiten in der Gerichtsbarkeit und der Justizverwaltung ), by conferring its duties and powers under section 50 of the Federal Notary Act on the president of the Court of Appeal of the relevant court district. The relevant parts of section   30 of that Regulation read as follows: “The following duties and powers under the Federal Notary Act are delegated to the presidents of the Courts of Appeal for their respective court district: ... 5. removal of notaries from office (section 50 of the Federal Notary Act); ...” Jurisdiction and composition of the designated court Relevant provisions in the Basic Law 23.     The domestic law provides for a right to a “lawful judge” ( Recht auf den gesetzlichen Richter ). This right is understood to entail not only the right to have the jurisdiction of the court called upon to adjudicate in a specific case determined in advance, but also to have confirmed in advance the composition of the panel of judges making up the deciding body of that court. That right therefore required consideration when the provisions concerning jurisdiction and the specific composition of the Celle Court of Appeal were adopted, and generally it requires consideration when those provisions are applied in the circumstances of a specific case. Both questions – the compliance of provisions concerning jurisdiction and composition of a court as well as their application to a specific case – are generally open to judicial review in each and every case. The right is embedded in Article 101 §   1 sentence 2 of the Basic Law, which reads as follows: “No one may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful judge.” Jurisdiction of the Celle Court of Appeal (a)    Federal Notary Act 24.     Section 111 of the Federal Notary Act vests jurisdiction for public law disputes under the Act – such as disputes concerning measures taken on the basis of section 50 (1) point 8 of the Act (see paragraph 20 above) – in the Courts of Appeal of the ordinary court branch as a court of first instance. Section 111a sentence 1 of the Act, which governs geographical jurisdiction in case there is more than one Court of Appeal in a Land , provides that, in principle, jurisdiction within a Land is vested in the Court of Appeal in whose district the challenged decision was taken. However, according to section 111a sentence 3, the Government of the Land may, where there is more than one Court of Appeal in that Land , by means of a regulation, change the application of jurisdiction in deviation from sentence   1. (b)    Law of the Land of Lower Saxony 25.     The Land of Lower Saxony, which has more than one Court of Appeal, has made use of this possibility by adopting its Regulation on the Jurisdiction of the Lawyer’s Disciplinary Court and the Senate for Notarial Matters ( Verordnung über die Zuständigkeit des Anwaltsgerichtshofs und des Senats für Notarsachen ). In section 1 (2) of the Regulation, the Land conferred the duties incumbent on the various Courts of Appeal under section 111 of the Federal Notary Act on the Celle Court of Appeal in relation to the districts of all Courts of Appeal within that Land . Jurisdiction of the notary senate at the Celle Court of Appeal 26.     A Court of Appeal of the ordinary court branch generally consists of civil law and criminal law senates (section 116 of the Courts Constitution Act). In addition, the Federal Notary Act presupposes that the Courts of Appeal establish a “notary senate”, which is to adjudicate on disciplinary measures against notaries and public law disputes under the Federal Notary Act, such as disputes on the basis of section 50 of the Federal Notary Act (section 111 (4) of the Federal Notary Act). The composition of the notary senate at the Celle Court of Appeal 27.     Section 101 et seq. of the Federal Notary Act require a particular composition of the notary senate: “The Court of Appeal shall sit, in disciplinary measures against notaries, in a composition of a presiding judge; an associate judge, who shall be a permanent judge at the Court; and an associate judge, who shall be a notary.” 28.     Regarding the offices of the professional judges, section 102 of the Federal Notary Act determines that the presiding judge of the notary senate has to, at the least, hold the office of a presiding judge at the Court of Appeal. It also indicates that his or her substitutes and the associate judge, who is a permanent judge at the Court, and his or her substitutes, are to be appointed by the executive committee of the Court of Appeal from amongst all of the permanent members of the Court of Appeal for a duration of five years. 29.     The specific presiding and the specific associate judge called upon to decide a specific case at a specific point in time are determined by a plan for the allocation of court business (“the allocation plan”), adopted by the executive committee of the Celle Court of Appeal – which was, at the relevant time, composed of the President as chairman and ten elected judges, under the provisions of the Courts Constitution Act. The relevant sections read as follows: Section 21a “(1) An executive committee shall be established at each court. (2) The executive committee shall be composed of the president or supervising judge acting as chairman and, 1. at courts with at least eighty permanent judicial posts, ten elected judges, 2. at courts with at least forty permanent judicial posts, eight elected judges, 3. at courts with at least twenty permanent judicial posts, six elected judges, 4. at courts with at least eight permanent judicial posts, four elected judges, 5. at the other courts, the judges eligible to stand for election pursuant to section   21b(1).” Section 21b “(1) The parties eligible to vote in elections in relation to the executive committee are the judges appointed for life and the judges appointed for a specified term upon whom a judicial office has been conferred at the court, as well as the judges on probation who are working at the court, the judges by commission and the judges on secondment for a term of at least three months who are performing judicial duties at the court. The parties eligible to stand for election to the executive committee are the judges appointed for life and the judges appointed for a specified term upon whom a judicial office has been conferred at the court. Parties who are neither eligible to vote in elections nor eligible to stand for election are judges who have been seconded to another court for more than three months, who have been on leave for more than three months or who have been seconded to an administrative authority. ...” Section 21e “(1) The executive committee shall determine the composition of the adjudicating bodies, appoint the investigating judges, regulate representation and allocate court business. It shall make these arrangements for the duration of the year, prior to the beginning of the business year. The president shall determine which judicial duties he shall perform. Each judge may belong to several adjudicating bodies. (2) The judges who are not members of the executive committee shall be given an opportunity to be heard prior to the allocation of court business. (3) The arrangements made under subsection (1) may only be changed in the course of the business year if this becomes necessary owing to the excessive or insufficient workload of a judge or adjudicating body or as a result of the transfer or prolonged absence of individual judges. The presiding judges of the adjudicating bodies affected by a change in the allocation of court business shall be given an opportunity to be heard prior to such change. (4) The executive committee may order that a judge or adjudicating body that has been handling a case continue to be responsible for that case following a change in the allocation of court business. (5) If a judge is to be assigned to another adjudicating body or if his sphere of competence is to be changed, he shall, except in urgent cases, be given an opportunity to be heard beforehand. (6) If a judge is to be released, either entirely or partially, in order to perform judicial administration functions, the executive committee shall be heard beforehand. (7) The executive committee shall decide by a majority vote. Section 21i(2) shall apply mutatis mutandis . (8) The executive committee may rule that judges of the court may be present during the deliberations and votes of the executive committee, either for the entire duration or for a part thereof. Section 171b shall apply mutatis mutandis . (9) The roster allocating court business shall be open for inspection at the registry of the court designated by the president or supervising judge; it need not be published.” 30.     Regarding the position of the notary in the notary senate (see paragraph 27 above), section 103 of the Federal Notary Act is of crucial significance: “(1) The associate judges who are notaries shall be appointed by the justice administration of the Land . They shall be notaries in the district over which the disciplinary court has jurisdiction. They shall be chosen from a list of proposed candidates, which shall be provided by the executive board of the chamber of notaries to the justice administration of the Land . The justice administration of the Land shall determine how many associate judges are necessary; it shall first hear from the executive board of the chamber of notaries. The list of proposed candidates drawn up by the executive board of the chamber of notaries must contain at least one and a half times the required number of notaries. Where a Court of Appeal covers several districts of chambers of notaries or parts of such districts, the justice administration of the Land shall apportion the number of associate judges among the districts of the individual chambers of notaries. ... (5) Associate judges shall be appointed for a period of five years; they may be reappointed after the end of their term of office. Where an associate judge retires from office prematurely, a successor shall be appointed for the remainder of that associate judge’s term of office. ...” 31.     The specific notary to be called upon to decide a specific case at a specific point in time, is also determined, in accordance with the framework provided for by section 103 of the Federal Notary Act (see paragraph 30 above), by the allocation plan, adopted by the executive committee of the Celle Court of Appeal, in line with the above-described requirements (see paragraph 29 above). Bias complaints 32.     A party may challenge the specific composition of the notary senate, as determined by the application of the above-described provisions and the allocation plan (see paragraphs 29 and 31 above) exclusively by way of a complaint of bias. In this connection, Article 54 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure and Articles 41 to 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure lay down requirements and rules of procedure in order to deal with such a complaint. On the basis of Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judge can be recused if there are grounds justifying doubts as to the judge’s impartiality. The court must, as explicitly set out in Article   45 §   1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rule on a complaint of bias lodged under that heading without the challenged judge being involved in reaching that decision, but instead with his substitute under the rules of the allocation plan. In case the bias complaint is held to be well founded, the judge must be replaced in accordance with the allocation plan. However, if the bias complaint is held to be inadmissible or unfounded, the judge will resume his function in the senate. The case-law of the domestic courts (Federal Administrative Court, decision of 24 January 1973, no. 3   CB 123/71 and decision of 14 November 2012, no. 2 KSt 1/11) does allow for the possibility that Article 45 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be applied, and hence allows for a ruling on a complaint of bias to be delivered with the participation of the challenged judge, if the complaint of bias is abusive. The domestic courts have held complaints of bias to be abusive where they were not based on reasons specific to the judge’s person or where they had not been substantiated in a manner so as to justify grounds for doubts as to the judge’s impartiality. Independence of the judges Relevant provisions of the Basic Law 33.     Article 97 of the Basic Law, which stipulates the requirement for a judge’s independence, reads as follows: “(1) Judges shall be independent and subject only to the law. (2) Judges appointed permanently to full-time positions may be involuntarily dismissed, permanently or temporarily suspended, transferred or retired before the expiration of their term of office only by virtue of a judicial decision and only for the reasons and in the manner specified by law. The legislature may set thresholds based on age for the retirement of judges appointed for life. In the event of changes in the structure of courts or in their districts, judges may be transferred to another court or removed from office, provided they retain their full salary.” Supervision of judges in the German Judiciary Act 34.     The administrative supervision of professional judges of the Court of Appeal, which lies with the President of that Court of Appeal (section 8 (2) point 1 of the Lower Saxony Judiciary Act – Niedersächsisches Justizgesetz ), may, under section 26 (2) of the German Judiciary Act ( Deutsches Richtergesetz ), pertain to the manner and timeliness of the execution of official office. It must, however, take sufficient consideration of, and not interfere with, a judge’s independence (section 26 (1) of the German Judiciary Act and Article 97 § (1) of the Basic Law). Above all, it must not pertain to his or her decision-making in a specific case. In particular, it must not be capable of affecting a judge’s decision in such a case. This reduces the scope of the administrative oversight by the President of the Court of Appeal over the judges at the Court of Appeal substantially, by excluding not only direct instructions, but also any other form of indirect influence on how a judge conducts his or her decision-making in any particular case (whether ongoing or in the future), thereby ruling out any form of assessment of the correctness of a decision. The matter is open to judicial review: any judge who deems himself subject to a measure not compliant with his independence may challenge that measure in court (section 26 (3) of the German Judiciary Act). 35.     The above-described principles are also applicable to notaries (section 104(1) of the Federal Notary Act and section 45(1) and (1a) of the German Judiciary Act). Appraisal and promotion of judges 36.     Article 33 § 2 of the Basic Law, under which every German citizen is equally eligible for any public office in line with his aptitude, qualifications and professional achievements, is a provision of central significance for the promotion of judges to higher posts. The provision is generally understood to establish an individual right for a judge to be promoted on the basis of his or her eligibility for a particular public office according to his aptitude, qualifications and professional achievements. Therefore, where there is more than one candidate for a particular post, the promoting authority, which is generally either the Ministry of Justice or the Government of the Land , is obliged to base its decision on a comparison of the candidates’ aptitude, qualifications and professional achievements. The decision to promote a particular judge is open to judicial review, to be initiated by those who had applied for a certain position but who were not ultimately chosen. 37.     In order to allow for a comparison on the basis of the criteria established in Article 33 § 2 of the Basic Law, the presidents of domestic courts prepare appraisal reports. Such reports are prepared on a regular basis for every judge, depending to some extent on the seniority or age of the appraised. Such reports are also prepared if there is specific reason to do so, such as a judge’s application for advancement. An appraisal report will generally contain an analysis of the aptitude, qualifications and professional achievements of the person seeking promotion. Such a report, in order to remain compatible with a judge’s independence, may not, by any means, exert or put direct or indirect pressure on the adjudicating activity of the appraisee. It would therefore be inadmissible for an appraiser to reproach a judge in an appraisal report for regularly deviating from the case-law of higher courts or for his or her decisions having been quashed by higher courts. The question of whether an appraisal report has caused an interference with a judge’s independence, as guaranteed by Article 97 § 1 of the Basic Law, is open to judicial review, to be initiated by the appraised judge. Appeal proceedings in notarial matters 38.     Section 111d of the Federal Notary Act provides that judgments of the Court of Appeal can be appealed, if leave to appeal is granted by either the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court of Justice upon a relevant request. The Federal Court of Justice bases its decision whether to grant leave to appeal solely on the submissions of the applicant. In contrast to appeal proceedings, it does not hear the other party, nor does it hold an oral hearing or take any evidence. In this regard, section 111b (1) of the Federal Notary Act renders the Code of Administrative Court Procedure applicable, which, at Articles 124 and 124a, provides: Section 124 “... (2) Leave to appeal on points of fact and law shall only be granted 1. if serious doubts exist as to the correctness of the judgment; 2. if the case has special factual or legal difficulties; 3. if the case is of fundamental significance; 4. if the judgment derogates from a ruling of either the Court of Appeal, the Federal Administrative Court, the Joint Panel of the Federal Supreme Courts or the Federal Constitutional Court, and is based on this derogation; or 5. if a procedural shortcoming which is subject to review by the appellate court on points of fact and law is claimed and established, provided that it may have affected the decision.” Section 124a “... (2) If leave to appeal on points of fact and law is not granted in the judgment of the administrative court, a petition for such leave shall be filed within one month of service of the complete judgment. ...” 39.     In a decision dated 25 November 2013 (file no. NotZ (Brfg) 13/13), the Federal Court of Justice found that serious doubts as to the correctness of the judgment pursuant to section 124 (2) point 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure existed when a summary assessment indicated that the applicant’s arguments were capable of calling into question the correctness of the finding of facts and law. The incorrect finding of facts and law must have been relevant for the outcome of the proceedings. THE LAW     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 40.     The applicant complained that he had not had an independent and impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...” 41.     The Government contested that argument. Admissibility 42.     The Government were of the opinion that the application was an abuse of the right of individual petition within the meaning of Article 35 §   3   (a) of the Convention, because the applicant’s submissions had been incomplete and misleading. They drew the Court’s attention to the applicant’s allegation that no other disciplinary measure, before the one in question, had been taken against him. However, this allegation was not true, as he had been subject to a disciplinary reprimand in 2011. Moreover, they drew the Court’s attention to the applicant’s insinuation that he had lodged an appeal on points of law ( Revision ) with the Federal Court of Justice, and not – as had really been the case – an appeal ( Berufung ). They assumed that this was intentional, because an appeal on points of law was much narrower in scope and therefore, unlike a regular appeal was incapable of remedying a prior violation. 43.     The applicant, in response to those accusations, alleged to have forgotten to inform the Court of the reprimand – the Government subsequently asserted that this objection was not credible. In respect of using the word “ Revision ” instead of “ Berufung ”, the applicant relied on an obvious clerical error. Moreover, he submitted that neither question was of essential relevance for the application. 44.     The Court considers that the information in question does not go to the core of the applicant’s complaint (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no.   67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014). In addition, the Court considers that the Government’s submissions are also unclear because they focus on the difference between an appeal and an appeal on points of law, although the applicant in compliance with his procedural obligations, lodged an application for leave to appeal, which does not – from what has been submitted to the Court – appear to be as fundamentally different from an application for leave to appeal on points of law as an appeal would be from an appeal on points of law. The Court cannot therefore conclude that the applicant’s conduct constituted an abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. 45.     The Government were furthermore of the opinion that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. As far as the applicant had been of the opinion that jurisdiction laid with the administrative court branch, he could have challenged the decision of 22 May 2013 of the Celle Court of Appeal before the Federal Constitutional Court, which he had not done. 46.     The applicant claimed to have exhausted domestic remedies. In respect of the question as to which branch of the judiciary had been called upon to rule in the dispute, he submitted that it was not possible to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal of 22 May 2013 in a separate complaint before any other court, including the Federal Constitutional Court – an assertion which the Government subsequently objected to as incorrect, because a constitutional complaint against a decision concerning the determination of the court branch with jurisdiction was, in principle, admissible. The applicant claimed to have sufficiently brought up the issue before the Federal Court of Justice and the Federal Constitutional Court as part of the main proceedings, rather than as a separate complaint. 47.     The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. Article 35 § 1 requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law, and further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used. However, Article 35 § 1 of the Convention must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism and it does not merely require that applications should be made to the appropriate domestic courts or that use should be made of remedies designed to challenge decisions already given. 48.     The Court considers that the applicant’s objection to the jurisdiction of the Celle Court of Appeal was only one of a number of attempts made by the applicant to achieve a composition of the “tribunal” that he would have considered to be in compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, he complained of bias in respect of several judges and of a violation of his constitutional right to a lawful judge before the Federal Court of Justice and the Federal Constitutional Court. The Court considers, even though it has doubts with regard to the applicant’s allegation that a constitutional complaint against the decision of 22 May 2013 would not have been possible, that the applicant was not relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to establish the jurisdiction of a certain court branch for a certain matter, although this issue had formed part of his domestic complaint (see paragraph 9 above) but rather that he was relying essentially on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention to establish an independent and impartial tribunal. Therefore, the complaints of bias, which allow a party to the proceedings to challenge the tribunal’s independence and impartiality and regarding which the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, appear to be effective with regard to the guarantee relied on. The Court, accordingly, has no reason to find the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 49.     The Court notes that the complaint is also not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions (a)    The applicant 50.     The applicant was of the opinion that the Celle Court of Appeal had not been an independent and impartial tribunal. That court had been called upon to decide the case, even though the challenged decision stemmed from its President, who had been named as the defendant in the proceedings. The presiding judge of the notary senate and the President had regular contact in the court, in particular during coffee und lunch breaks. They were further both members of the executive committee at the relevant time. Also, the President, as a member of the executive committee, could influence the composition of the notary senate and could decide on whether judges in the notary senate kept that position or not. He could therefore designate “his own judge” and thereby interfere massively with the proceedings, to which he was himself a party. 51.     The President was also the supervising authority for the judges of the notary senate. Moreover, the considerable significance of the President in relation to the personal progression of the deciding judges had to be taken into consideration. The President did not generally decide by himself whom to promote and whom not to promote. He did, however, play a significant role in relation to the issue of promotion, since he prepared appraisal reports, which were of key importance in promotion decisions. In this regard, the conflict of interest was obvious. This became all the more obvious when taking into account the fact that the judge, who at the time had presided over the notary senate, had subsequently been promoted to Vice-President of the Celle Court of Appeal. 52.     Finally, the independence and impartiality deficit was not, despite the Government’s assertions, remedied by the decision of the Federal Court of Justice. That court never conducted a comprehensive examination of the case, referring to both its facts and the law. It had instead only assessed whether or not to grant leave to appeal, which was an assessment necessarily limited in scope compared to an assessment of full appeal proceedings. This was in particular problematic because the applicant had raised the question of fact whether his conduct had caused a real risk to the interests of the users of his legal services. (b)    The Government 53.     The Government were of the opinion that the complaint was without merit. Even assuming that the composition of the Celle Court of Appeal had not been sufficient to maintain the appearance of independence and impartiality, the fact that the Federal Court of Justice had reviewed that court’s decision had essentially remedied that deficit (see De Cubber v.   Belgium , 26 October 1984, § 33, Series A no. 86, and Crompton v. the United Kingdom , no. 42509/05, § 76-79, 27 October 2009). 54.     The Government moreover contended that there had been convincing reasons to assign the jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal, as provided for in section 111 of the Federal Notary Act (compare paragraphs   24 and 25 above). The supervision of notaries, including the power to remove them, was entrusted to the presidents of the Courts of Appeal in the region in which the notaries were active. The courts of the ordinary court branch, and in particular the Courts of Appeal, were accordingly familiar with the activities of notaries. The option of concentrating jurisdiction at just one court, as provided for in section   111a sentence 3 of the Federal Notary Act (see paragraphs 24 and 25 above), had been made use of in Lower Saxony – jurisdiction had been concentrated at the Celle Court of Appeal to the effect that the notaries from the two other districts of the Courts of Appeal in Lower Saxony would also have to bring any challenges to disciplinary measures before that court. 55.     Moreover, the Government were of the opinion that, given the reasons for vesting jurisdiction in the Celle Court of Appeal, that court had also been a sufficiently independent and impartial tribunal in the circumstances of the case. The tribunal had comprised three judges, who all enjoyed full judicial independence, as guaranteed by the Basic Law as well as its implementation provisions. They were, in particular, not subject to any instructions, directions, indirect exertion or even recommendations by the President of the court. Two of them were professional judges, who held that office for life, were paid well and had been appointed by the Government of the Land or the Ministry of Justice of the Land , typically from a lower ranking post, and assigned to be a member of the notary senate by the executive committee for a duration of five years. The