CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sCDED223E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s14BE19CF { margin-bottom:14pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sD0AF9151 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding:1pt 4pt 14pt; font-size:11pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s538D183F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA4D66361 { font-family:Arial; color:#0070c0 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF80F4073 { font-size:9.5pt } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s76C7ECA6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10.5pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF ILIEVSKA AND ZDRAVEVA v. NORTH MACEDONIA (Applications nos. 19689/21 and 42794/22)   JUDGMENT Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Applicants’ inability to appeal against the State Judicial Council’s (“SJC”) decisions dismissing them from their judicial post following the remittal of their cases by second-instance Appeal Panels • Art   6 applicable • Genuine and serious dispute over arguable civil “right” under domestic law to serve an unlimited term of office • SJC and Appeal Panels satisfied Art   6 §   1 “tribunal” requirements • Inability to ascertain the SJC’s compliance in the remitted proceedings with the Appeal Panels’ binding instructions issued when they quashed the dismissal decisions • Strong public interest in upholding the rule of law and ensuring public confidence in the judiciary required such an assessment • Absence of any judicial mechanism capable for subsequent review practically rendered the first appeals before the Appeal Panels devoid of any meaning, undermining the effectiveness of the appeal process and weakening the practical guarantees of judicial protection under Art   6 §   1 • Very essence of right of access to court impaired Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG 13 November 2025 FINAL   13/02/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ilievska and Zdraveva v. North Macedonia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Péter Paczolay,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Stéphane Pisani,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   19689/21 and 42794/22) against the Republic of North Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ms Silvana Ilievska (“the first applicant”) and Ms Suzana Zdraveva (“the second applicant”), Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia, on the dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) of the applicants’ complaints concerning their inability to appeal (after the remittal of their cases) against the decisions of the Judicial Council of the Republic of North Macedonia (hereinafter “the State Judicial Council” or “the SJC”) dismissing them from their posts as judges, as well as the second applicant’s complaint of a violation of the principle of legal certainty, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 14 October 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicants’ inability under domestic law to appeal against the decisions of the State Judicial Council to dismiss them from their posts as judges following the remittal of their cases by second ‑ instance panels formed within the Supreme Court. It also concerns the second applicant’s complaint regarding a violation of the principle of legal certainty. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were born in 1958 and 1963 and live in Bitola and Shtip, respectively. The first applicant was initially represented by Mr   Lj.   Ilievski, subsequently by Mr   T. Domazetovski, and lastly by Ms S.   Zaceska, lawyers all practising in Bitola. She was finally granted leave to represent herself. The second applicant was represented by Mr   A. Godjo and Mr Z. Hadji-Zafirov, lawyers practising in Ohrid and Skopje, respectively. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   D. Djonova. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The First applicant’s dismissal 5.     The first applicant is a former judge of the Bitola Court of First Instance. 6.     On 22   May 2019 D.G.K., a private individual, requested that the SJC initiate professional misconduct proceedings against the first applicant. On 18 June 2019 the SJC decided not to initiate such proceedings, as the proposal to consider the request complete and timely had not attained the requisite majority. 7.     On 17 June 2019 D.G.K. again submitted a request for professional misconduct proceedings against the first applicant. The request stated that the first applicant had acted unprofessionally and unconscientiously when she had validated a care agreement between D.G.K.’s mother and another person. D.G.K. had been present at the validation of the agreement and alleged that the first applicant had made reference to D.G.K.’s husband, Z.K., President of the SJC at that time. 8.     On 5   October 2019 copies of the request for professional misconduct proceedings and the supporting evidence were served on the first applicant. On 16 October 2019 she submitted a written reply to the request. On 4   December 2019 a commission established by the SJC (“the Commission of Rapporteurs”) heard D.G.K., the first applicant and her lawyer, and admitted documentary evidence, including that proposed by the first applicant. 9 .     On 10 February 2020 the SJC dismissed the first applicant for professional misconduct. It found that she had validated the care agreement despite an extract from the land registry concerning D.G.K.’s mother’s apartment indicating that proceedings to deprive D.G.K.’s mother of her legal capacity had been pending. Moreover, the two witnesses present at the validation of the agreement had not known D.G.K.’s mother (as required by law), and the medical expert who had drawn up a report on the mother’s legal capacity had not been a psychologist or psychiatrist but a forensic doctor. 10.     On 2 March 2020 the first applicant, both personally and through her lawyer, appealed against the SJC’s decision. 11 .     On 12 June 2020 a second-instance panel, formed within the Supreme Court specifically for the first applicant’s case pursuant to the SJC Act (“the Appeal Panel”, see paragraph 39 below), quashed the SJC’s decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It found that: (i) the SJC had not established the elements of section   74(3) of the Courts Act, namely whether the professional misconduct had been committed with intent or obvious negligence, without justified reasons, had been the first applicant’s fault, and had caused serious consequences (see paragraph   37 below); (ii) by a court decision, the request for the deprivation of legal capacity of D.G.K.’s mother had been considered withdrawn at the time the first applicant had validated the care agreement, and there had been no evidence that that decision had been appealed; (iii) the fact that the first applicant had validated the agreement despite the witnesses not knowing D.G.K.’s mother did not constitute a serious professional error; and (iv) the “professional capacity” ( стручно својство ) of the medical expert was immaterial. The Appeal Panel also stated that the legal opinion of a judge was not a statutory ground for establishing professional misconduct. 12.     On 25 August 2020 the Commission of Rapporteurs again heard the first applicant and her lawyer. It also heard D.G.K. and admitted documentary evidence. 13.     On 15 October 2020 the SJC dismissed the first applicant again. It reiterated its previous findings (see paragraph   9 above) and, having established additional facts, found inter alia that the first applicant had intentionally committed professional misconduct, without justified reasons, and that this had resulted in serious consequences. Publicly available material indicates that Z.K. was not a member of the SJC when it dismissed the first applicant. 14.     The first applicant, both personally and through her lawyer, appealed against the SJC’s decision. She argued, among other things, that Article   15 of the Constitution guaranteed her the right to appeal against the SJC’s dismissal decision and that, in the remitted proceedings, the SJC had not complied with the instructions of the Appeal Panel. 15 .     By a decision dated 15 December 2020 the SJC rejected the first applicant’s appeals as inadmissible, referring to section   72(6) of the SJC Act, which provides that no appeal may be lodged against an SJC decision adopted after the remittal of a case (see paragraph 39 below).   The first applicant, through her lawyer, appealed against the SJC’s decision of 15   December 2020. On 12 February 2021, referring to Amendment XXI to the Constitution and section 72(6) of the SJC Act (see paragraphs   29 and 39 below), the SJC notified the first applicant that no appeal could be lodged against a decision adopted under section   72(5) of the SJC Act. The second applicant’s dismissal Background to the professional misconduct proceedings against the second applicant 16.     At the time of the events described below, the second applicant was a judge at the Shtip Court of Appeal and her son worked for a law firm. 17 .     On 12 February 2019, N.G., the President of the Shtip Court of Appeal, adopted a decision stating that the fact that the children of two judges from that court (the second applicant and Judge S.J.) worked in a law firm or lawyer’s office did not require those judges to recuse themselves from cases where the parties were represented by that law firm or lawyer, provided that the judges’ children were not individually authorised to represent the parties and had not undertaken any procedural actions. The decision was adopted in the interests of expediency ( целисходност ) and procedural economy, following the dismissal of two recusal requests submitted by Judge S.J. She had stated that she would continue to submit individual recusal requests in similar cases. 18 .     On 4 December 2020 company I. requested that the second applicant be recused from a set of civil proceedings to which it was a party, as her son worked for the law firm representing the opposing party in those proceedings. 19.     On 10 December 2020 the second applicant notified the then acting President of the Shtip Court of Appeal (Z.M.) that her son did indeed work for the law firm in question. However, she referred to the decision of 12   February 2019 (see paragraph 17 above) and confirmed that her son had not undertaken any procedural actions in the proceedings. She asked Z.M. to determine whether there were grounds for her recusal. 20 .     On 14   December 2020 Z.M. dismissed the recusal request. Referring to the grounds for recusal in section 64(1)(3) and (6) of the Civil Proceedings Act (see paragraph   40 below), he held that the mere fact that the second applicant’s son was employed by the law firm representing a party in the proceedings could not raise doubts as to her impartiality. Proceedings before the SJC for the second applicant’s dismissal 21.     On 25 February 2021 company I. requested that the SJC dismiss the second applicant and Z.M., arguing that the second applicant had failed to request her own recusal and Z.M. had not recused her from the above ‑ mentioned civil proceedings (see paragraphs   18-20 above). 22 .     On 14 July 2021 the SJC dismissed the second applicant and Z.M. from their posts as judges. It found that the second applicant had been aware of the grounds for her recusal but had failed to request it when the case in question had been assigned to her. The decision of 12   February 2019 had not absolved her of the obligation to seek recusal. The SJC referred, inter alia , to section   64(1)(3) and (6) and section   65(2) of the Civil Proceedings Act, section 75(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (see paragraphs 40-42 below), the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (see, for example, Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v.   Georgia , no.   16812/17, § 224, 18   July 2019) and the Court’s case-law (including Koulias v.   Cyprus , no. 48781/12, 26 May 2020). The SJC held that the second applicant’s actions had caused serious consequences, most notably damaging the reputation of the judiciary and casting doubt on the court’s impartiality. 23.     On 5 August 2021 the second applicant appealed against the SJC’s decision. She argued, among other things, that in the period following the decision of 12   February 2019, Z.M., in his capacity as acting President of the Shtip Court of Appeal, had continued the practice established with that decision and that any individual attempt by her to seek recusal would have had no prospect of success. She further argued that before the decision of 12   February 2019 and after Z.M. had ceased to be President of the Shtip Court of Appeal, she had repeatedly submitted recusal requests in similar situations. She referred to ten decisions adopted in 2017, 108 decisions adopted in 2018 and fifteen decisions adopted in 2021, all upholding her recusal requests. 24 .     On 29 November 2021 a second-instance panel, formed within the Supreme Court specifically for the second applicant’s case pursuant to the SJC Act (“the Appeal Panel”, see paragraph 39 below), upheld her appeal and quashed the SJC’s decision. It established, inter alia , that the SJC had failed to conduct separate proceedings and adopt separate decisions in respect of the second applicant and Z.M. The Appeal Panel also held that the SJC had not clearly established intent or obvious negligence on the second applicant’s part or demonstrated the serious consequences of her actions – both of which were required to establish professional misconduct under section   74(3) of the Courts Act. The SJC had not established the relevant facts, such as when the case in question had been assigned to the second applicant, whether she had undertaken any actions in those proceedings at that time, and whether and how the decision of 12   February 2019, the second applicant’s notification of 11   December 2020 and Z.M.’s decision of 14   December 2020 had affected the outcome of the proceedings. 25.     On 16   February 2022 a commission formed pursuant to the SJC Act (“the Commission of Rapporteurs”) held a hearing, at which it heard the second applicant and Z.M. and admitted material evidence. On 2   March 2022 the Commission of Rapporteurs submitted its report to the SJC. 26.     By a decision dated 18 April 2022 the SJC again dismissed the second applicant for professional misconduct. It established that, upon receiving the case file in question, she had learnt that the law firm employing her son had been representing one of the parties in the proceedings but had intentionally not notified Z.M. of the grounds for her recusal. Following company I.’s recusal request, she had intentionally, in order not to be recused, invoked the practice introduced by the decision of 12   February 2019, despite it not being a positive example of practice to be followed. Furthermore, the second applicant could have initiated proceedings before the State Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (“the Anti-Corruption Commission”) to determine whether a conflict of interest existed (section 76(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, see paragraph   42 below). The SJC again relied on the documents referred to in its previous decision (see paragraph   22 above), as well as on the Court’s judgments in, among other cases, Nicholas v.   Cyprus (no. 63246/10, 9   January 2018) and Ramljak v.   Croatia (no.   5856/13, 27 June 2017). Once more, it held that the second applicant’s actions had resulted in serious consequences, notably a violation of the right to an impartial tribunal and damage to the reputation of the judiciary. 27.     On 6 May 2022 the second applicant appealed against the SJC’s decision. She argued that her inability to appeal against that decision would violate her right to appeal and right to judicial protection, as guaranteed under Articles 15 and 50 of the Constitution, and would amount to a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. She further argued that the Supreme Court and the Appeal Panel could apply the Constitution and the Convention directly and assess her appeal on the merits. In her view, her dismissal, despite the decision of 12 February 2019, had violated the principle of legal certainty. She also asserted that the Court’s case-law referred to by the SJC was incomplete and concerned different facts from those in her case. Lastly, she argued that the SJC had not complied with the Appeal Panel’s instructions. 28 .     On 6 March 2023 the Supreme Court requested the second applicant’s case file from the SJC. On 15 March 2023 the SJC declined to provide it. On 27 March 2023 the Supreme Court, at a plenary session, adjourned the selection of members of a further second-instance panel (Appeal Panel) to decide the second applicant’s appeal for an undetermined period of time. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Relevant domestic law and practice 1991 Constitution, as amended by the 2005 Constitutional Amendments 29 .     Amendment XXI, which replaced Article   15 of the Constitution, guarantees the right to appeal against first-instance court decisions and provides that the right to appeal or to another type of remedy ( правна заштита ) against individual decisions adopted at first instance by an administrative authority or another body performing public functions ( јавни овластувања ) is regulated by law. 30 .     Article   50 § 2 guarantees judicial protection of the lawfulness of individual acts of the State administration and other institutions which perform public functions. 31.     Amendment XXV, which replaced Article 98, provides, inter alia , that the courts are autonomous and independent, and that they adjudicate on the basis of the Constitution, laws and international agreements ratified in accordance with the Constitution. Extraordinary courts are prohibited. 32.     Article   99 and Amendment XXVI, which partly replaced it, provide that a judge’s term of office is unlimited in duration and ceases if the judge requests it, if the SJC decides that the judge is permanently unable to perform judicial functions, if the judge retires, if the judge is convicted and sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment, and (under certain conditions) if he or she is elected to another public office. A judge may be dismissed from judicial office   if he or she commits a serious disciplinary violation, as provided for by law, which renders him or her unfit to perform judicial functions, or if he or she exercises the functions of a judge in an unprofessional and unconscientious manner, under the conditions provided for by law. 33.     Under Article   100 § 3 and Amendment XXVII, judicial office is incompatible with membership in a political party or the exercise of another public function or profession as determined by law. Article   100 § 4 forbids political organisations and activities in the judiciary. 34.     Under Article   101, the Supreme Court is the highest court providing uniformity in the implementation of laws by the courts. 35.     Amendment XXVIII, which replaced Article   104, reads as follows: “[The SJC] is an autonomous and independent institution of the judiciary. [It] ensures and guarantees the autonomy and independence of the judiciary. [The SJC] is composed of fifteen members. The President of the Supreme Court ... and the Minister of Justice are ex officio members of [the SJC]. Eight members of [the SJC] are elected by judges from among their peers ... Parliament elects three members of [the SJC] with a majority of all members of Parliament (мнозинство гласови од вкупниот број пратеници) , which must include a majority of members of Parliament belonging to the non-majority communities (заедниците кои не се мнозинство) ... Two members are proposed by the President [of the State] ... and elected by Parliament... The members of [the SJC] elected by Parliament, and those proposed by the President [are] university law professors, lawyers or other prominent jurists. The members of [the SJC] are elected for a term of six years, with the possibility of re-election. ... The functions of a member of [the SJC] are incompatible with membership in a political party and with the exercise of another public function or profession, as determined by law.” 36.     The relevant parts of Amendment XXIX, which replaced Article 105, read as follows: “[The SJC]: - elects and dismisses judges and lay judges; -   establishes the termination of a judge’s functions; -   elects and dismisses court presidents; -   monitors and assesses the work of judges; -   decides on judges’ disciplinary liability; -   decides whether to strip judges of their immunity; -   proposes two judges of the Constitutional Court ... ... [The SJC] submits an annual report on its work to Parliament ...” Courts Act ( Закон за судовите , Official Gazette nos. 58/2006, 35/2008, 150/2010, 83/2018, 198/2018 and 96/2019) 37.     Under section 74(1), a judge may be dismissed if he or she commits a serious disciplinary offence, as provided for by law, which renders him or her unfit to perform judicial functions, or if he or she performs judicial functions in an unprofessional and unconscientious manner, under the conditions provided for by law. Under section 74(3), a judge may be dismissed if the professional misconduct was committed with intent or obvious negligence, was the judge’s fault, and was without justified reasons, and if it caused serious consequences. 38.     Section 75(1)(4) provides that an obvious breach of the rules for recusal in a situation in which a judge knew or should have known that there was a reason for his or her recusal, constitutes a serious disciplinary offence. Under section   76(1)(7), an intentional and unjustified serious mistake at work ( крупна професионална грешка ) may constitute unprofessional and unconscientious performance of judicial functions. A different interpretation of the facts and law cannot be grounds for establishing a judge’s professional misconduct. State Judicial Council Act ( Закон за судскиот совет на Република Северна Македонија , Official Gazette no. 102/2019; “the SJC Act”) 39 .     The relevant provisions of the SJC Act read as follows: Political activities ( политичко дејствување ) Section 3 “(1) Political organisation[s] and activities in [the SJC] are prohibited. (2) [The SJC’s] members, in the performance of its functions, shall not take part in partisan activities. (3) Through its work, [the SJC] shall prevent political influence over the judiciary. ...” Composition of [the SJC] Section 6 “(1) [The SJC] is composed of fifteen members, out of which: - the President of the Supreme Court ... and the Minister of Justice are ex officio members...; - eight members ... are elected by judges from among their peers ... - three members ... are elected by Parliament with a majority of all members of Parliament, which must include a majority of members of Parliament belonging to the non-majority communities ... and - two members ... are proposed by the President [of the State] and elected by Parliament ... (2) The ex officio members of [the SJC] shall participate in [its] work, without the right to vote. (3) The ex officio members of [the SJC] shall not participate in [the SJC’s] work at the sessions at which professional misconduct proceedings ( постапка за утврдување на одговорност ) or the appointment or dismissal of a judge or court president are being discussed and decided.” Term of office of members of [the SJC] Section 7 “(1) The term of office of members of [the SJC] elected by judges shall be six years, with the possibility of re-election after at least six years following the termination of the previous term of office. (2) The term of office of members ... elected by Parliament ... shall be six years, with the possibility of re-election. (3) The term of office [in the SJC] of the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice shall cease upon the termination of their functions. ...” Election and term of office of the president of [the SJC] Section 8 “(1) The work of [the SJC] is directed by its President. (2) The President ... has a Deputy, who acts in his or her stead during his or her absence. (3) The President ... and his or her Deputy shall be elected from among the voting members of [the SJC], who have been appointed by Parliament ... (4) The President ... and his or her Deputy shall be elected by a minimum of eight votes of the members entitled to vote. (5) The term of office of the President ... and the Deputy ... shall be two years, without the possibility of re-election.” Conditions for electing [or appointing] a member of [the SJC] Section 11 “(1) Any judge ... fulfilling the following conditions may apply to the vacancy notice for the election of a member of [the SJC] from among the judges: - [he or she] has at least six years’ experience as a judge; - [his or her] performance of judicial functions has been positively appraised; and - [he or she] has not, in a final decision in disciplinary proceedings, been subjected to a 15-30% decrease in salary that remains in effect at the time of the vacancy notice. (2) Any person fulfilling the following conditions may apply to the vacancy notice for the election of a member of [the SJC] on the proposal of Parliament: - ... - [he or she is a] lawyer with at least fifteen years’ experience in the legal profession, who has passed the bar exam and who ... has distinguished [him or herself] through scientific or professional work or ... public activity; ... - [he or she] has [the requisite] reputation and integrity for the performance of the functions of a member of [the SJC]. (3) At the proposal of the President of [the State], Parliament ... may elect a person as member of [the SJC] who ...: ... - [is a] lawyer with at least fifteen years’ experience in the legal profession, who has passed the bar exam and who ... has distinguished [him or herself] through scientific or professional work or ... public activity; ... - has [the requisite] reputation and integrity for the performance of the functions of a member of [the SJC]. ... (4) In the cases referred to in subsections (2) and (3) above, a person who ... in the past four years has been a member of parliament or the government, or who has performed functions within a body of a political party, shall not be elected as a member of [the SJC]. (5) Members of [the SJC] elected by Parliament ... as well as those elected by Parliament on the proposal of the President [of the State], shall be selected from among university law professors, lawyers, former judges of the Constitutional Court, international judges and other prominent jurists.” Termination of the term of office of a member of [the SJC] Section 31 “(1) The term of office of a member of [the SJC] shall end: 1) upon the expiry of the term for which he [or she] is elected; 2) at his [or her] own request; 3) if he [or she] is dismissed from judicial office in accordance with the law; and 4) if he [or she] is [convicted and] sentenced ... to at least six months’ imprisonment, rendering him [or her] unfit to perform the functions of an [SJC member]; 5) if it has been established that he [or she has] permanently lost the ability to perform his [or her] functions; or 6) if he [or she] is elected to perform another public function or profession. ...” Grounds for submitting a request for disciplinary proceedings against a member of [the SJC] Section 34 “(1) A reasoned request for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a member of [the SJC] may be submitted to [the SJC] by at least twenty judges or by any member of [the SJC] with the right to vote, if a member of [the SJC]: - influences the independence of judges and exerts pressure in relation to the adjudication of certain cases; - neglects and does not perform his [or her] functions in the work of [the SJC]; - refuses to submit a declaration of assets and interests in accordance with the law or if the data contained in the declaration are largely inaccurate; or - breaches the rules for recusal in situations in which the member of [the SJC] knew or ought to have known that there was a reason for recusal provided for by law. (2) A member of [the SJC] shall be dismissed from his [or her] functions on the grounds referred to in subsection (1) if the breach was committed: - with intent or obvious negligence on the part of the member of [the SJC] without justified reasons; and - the breach caused serious consequences.” Proceedings for deciding a request for disciplinary proceedings against a member of [the SJC] Section 35 ... “(6) [The SJC] shall adopt a decision to dismiss [its] member with at least eight votes from the members with the right to vote, with at least two members elected by Parliament ... voting in favour of the dismissal. (7) The ex officio members [of the SJC], the member whose liability is being decided and the member who has submitted the request for disciplinary proceedings shall not participate in the adoption of the decision referred to in subsection (6). ...” President of [the SJC] Section 40 “The President ... shall: - represent [the SJC]; - chair and direct its sessions; - participate in the work and decision-making of [the SJC]; - sign the ... acts of [the SJC] and ensure their enforcement; - ensure the enforcement of [the SJC’s] Rules of Procedure; - perform other duties as prescribed by law and the Rules of Procedure.” Equality of the members of [the SJC] Section 41 “The members of [the SJC] with a right to vote are equal in their rights and obligations in the performance of the function of a member of [the SJC].” Rights, duties and responsibilities of a member of [the SJC] Section 43 “(1) A member of [the SJC] with voting rights shall have the following rights, duties and responsibilities: - to participate in the work and decision-making of [the SJC]; - to submit initiatives, proposals and opinions on matters within [the SJC’s] competence; - to take part in the work of [the SJC’s] working bodies to which he or she has been appointed; - upon a decision of [the SJC], to inspect ( остварува увид ) a judge’s work and undertake other actions, and to report thereof to [the SJC]; - to be liable for any violation of the Constitution or law in connection with the performance of his or her function within [the SJC]; and - to perform other tasks as prescribed by this law. (2) The Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court, as ex officio members ... , shall have the same rights, duties and responsibilities as the voting members referred to in subsection (1) ... , except in cases provided for by this law.” Grounds for dismissal of a judge Section 60 “A judge shall be dismissed from judicial office: 1) for a serious disciplinary breach ( потешка дисциплинска повреда ), as provided for by law, which renders him [or her] unfit to perform judicial functions; and 2) for unprofessional and unconscientious performance of judicial functions, as prescribed by law.” Proceedings for establishing professional misconduct ( утврдување на одговорност ) on the part of a judge or court president Section 61 “(1) Professional misconduct proceedings concerning a judge or court president shall be initiated within six months from the date of discovery of the [misconduct] ( од денот на осознавање на сторената повреда ), but no later than three years from the date on which [it] was committed. (2) The proceedings shall be urgent and confidential, [and shall be] conducted without the presence of the public and by respecting the reputation and dignity of the judge or court president... (3) At the request of the judge or court president, [the SJC] shall decide that the proceedings shall be conducted in public. (4) At the request of the judge or court president, a representative of the Judges’ Association may also attend the session.” Commission of Rapporteurs Section 63 “(1) Upon receiving a request [for] professional misconduct proceedings ... [the SJC], by drawing lots from among its members with the right to vote, shall establish a commission of rapporteurs (hereinafter “the Commission”), composed of three members, two of whom shall be from among the members elected by judges, and one of whom shall be from among the members elected by Parliament ... The president of the Commission shall be selected by lot from among [its] members. (2) [The SJC] member who submitted the request [for professional misconduct proceedings] ... may not be a member of the Commission. ... (4) The Commission shall reject the request ... if it is: - lodged out of time; ...” Gathering data and evidence Section 64 “(1) The Commission shall gather data and evidence ... for establishing the matters ( состојбата ) relating to the request. ...” Service Section 65 “(1) The Commission shall serve the request and evidence personally on the judge or court president, through the [registry] of [his or her] court ... or by registered mail to the home address. ... (3) The judge or court president may reply in writing to the allegations in the request or give an oral statement ... within eight days from the date of receiving the request. (4) The judge or court president ... shall have the right to be defended by a lawyer ... (5) Together with the reply to the request, the judge or court president shall submit all evidence in support of the reply. ...” Hearing ... Section 66 “(1) The Commission shall schedule a hearing within seven days of receiving the judge’s or court president’s reply to the request ... (2) The judge or court president shall be summoned to the hearing. (3) If the judge or court president duly summoned does not appear at the hearing and does not justify [his or her] absence, the hearing shall be held. (4) Evidence proposed by the person who has submitted the [request for professional misconduct proceedings] and by the judge or court president, as well as evidence obtained by the Commission, shall be presented at the hearing. (5) The judge or court president shall have the right to comment on all evidence presented at the hearing, orally ... or in writing within three days. (6) Minutes shall be drawn up of the actions taken at the hearing ... by a member of [the SJC registry]. (7) The minutes shall contain, in particular, information on: the date, time and place of the hearing, the president and members of the Commission ... the names of the persons present, the statement of the judge or court president or his [or her] counsel and the evidence presented. The minutes shall be signed by the applicant, the judge or court president, his or her counsel, the Commission and the person taking the minutes. (8) If any of the persons ... does not sign the minutes, [this] shall be noted therein. (9) During... the hearing ... an audio-recording shall be made. ...” Report of the Commission Section 67 “(1) The Commission shall submit a report ... to [the SJC] within fifteen days from the date of the hearing. (2) The report shall contain all files and documents that the Commission had at its disposal in the course of the proceedings, as well as the statement of the judge or court president and the description of the actions taken. (3) All files shall be made available to [the SJC’s] members.” [The SJC’s] deliberations ( расправа пред Советот ) Section 68 “(1) The president of the Commission shall present its report at [the SJC’s] deliberations. (2) The president and members of the Commission shall participate in the deliberations and vote on the decision. (3) If the request [for professional misconduct proceedings] was submitted by a member of [the SJC], he [or she] shall not participate in [the SJC’s] deliberations and shall be exempted from voting on the final decision. ...” Proceedings for deciding upon a draft decision [regarding professional misconduct] Section 69 “(1) At its session, [the SJC] shall deliberate on the report of the Commission ... and ... with at least seven votes from the total number of members with the right to vote, shall stay the proceedings if it determines that there are no grounds for [establishing professional misconduct]. ... (3) If [the SJC] does not stay the proceedings [and] establishes [professional misconduct] on the part of the judge or court president ... it shall dismiss [him or her] ... with at least eight votes from the total number of members with the right to vote. ...” Service of the decision Section 71 “(1) The decision [establishing professional misconduct] shall be prepared within ten days from its adoption and shall include an introduction, operative provisions, reasoning and a legal instruction. ...” Right to appeal Section 72 “(1) Only the judge or court president [against whom the professional misconduct proceedings were conducted] has the right to appeal against the decision of [the SJC] before a panel of the Supreme Court ... (hereinafter “the Appeal Panel”), within eight days from the date of service of the decision. (2) The Appeal Panel shall be composed of nine members, three of whom shall be judges of the Supreme Court ... one judge from each of the appellate courts and two judges from the court where the judge against whom the [professional misconduct] proceedings were conducted sat as a judge. The members shall be selected publicly by drawings lots at a plenary session of the Supreme Court, and of the [other] relevant court, within ten days from the date of receipt of the appeal. (3) The Appeal Panel shall decide the appeal no later than thirty days after being formed, assessing the legality of the proceedings ( законитоста на постапката ). (4) ... the Appeal Panel may confirm or quash [the SJC’s] decision in the event of a gross breach of the provisions concerning [professional misconduct] proceedings ( груба повреда на одредбите за постапката за одговорност ). (5) If the Appeal Panel quashes [the SJC’s] decision, the [latter] shall conduct the proceedings anew, in strict compliance ( задолжително почитувајќи ги ) with the instructions of the Appeal Panel. [It] shall adopt a decision and publish it on its website. (6) No appeal or [other claim] may be brought against the decision referred to in subsection (5). (7) The President of the Supreme Court and a judge participating in the proceedings before the SJC may not be members of the Appeal Panel ...” Reopening of proceedings following a final judgment of [the Court] Section 73 “(1) When [the Court] finds a violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms guaranteed by [the Convention] and its Additional Protocols... ratified in accordance with its Constitution..., a judge or court president whose rights have been violated may, within 30 days, but no later than three years from the finality of the judgment of [the Court], submit a request to [the SJC] for the reopening of the proceedings. ... (3) In the reopened proceedings, [the SJC] must respect the legal positions expressed in the final judgment of [the Court] finding the violation. (5) Within 15 days, [the SJC] shall form a Commission ... ... (8) If the Commission finds that the request is timely, complete and admissible, ... [the SJC]..., shall forward the file to [the Appeal Panel]... within three days. (9) The Appeal Panel must act within 15 days from the receipt of the file, quash its own decision and that of [the SJC] in line with the legal positions expressed in the final judgment of [the Court]... and remit the case to [the SJC]... ...” Right to a fair trial Section 74 “In the course of the proceedings before [the SJC], the judge or court president against whom the proceedings are being conducted has the right to a fair trial in accordance with the guarantees of Article 6 of the [Convention].” Civil Proceedings Act ( Закон за парничната постапка , Official Gazette nos. 79/2002, 110/2008, 83/2009, 116/2010 and 124/2015) 40 .     Under section 64, a judge cannot adjudicate a case, inter alia , if he or she is related to a party or a party’s representative to a certain degree (section   64(1)(3)) or if there is some other reason which cas