CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 5 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s50A0504C { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; 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 } .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 } .s1B1D10B4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sF900A6B { width:28.55pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sED1F0299 { width:141.42pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } SECOND SECTION CASE OF GEROVSKA-POPCHEVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA (No. 2) (Application no. 30989/20)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Tribunal established by law • Art   6 applicable to proceedings in which the State Judicial Council (“SJC”) found professional misconduct on the part of a retired judge in the performance of her judicial functions • Impugned proceedings directly concerned her civil right to enjoy a good reputation • SJC, albeit constituting “a tribunal”, was not “established by law” • Members of the SJC Commission which had submitted a report to the SJC on the applicant’s case later voted for the SJC’s final decision in the case, in contravention with the relevant procedural rules Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Applicant’s inability to appeal against the SJC’s decision following the remittal of her case by a second-instance Appeal Panel • Appeal Panel’s inability to ascertain whether the SJC complied with its earlier instructions in the remitted proceedings deprived the applicant’s right of access to the Appeal Panel of any substance, even in the proceedings before remittal • Very essence of right of access to court impaired • Importance of procedural safeguards in proceedings concerning the performance of the judicial function reiterated   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 5 May 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gerovska-Popchevska v. North Macedonia (no. 2), The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Péter Paczolay,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Stéphane Pisani,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   30989/20) 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 a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, Ms Snezhana Gerovska-Popchevska (“the applicant”), on 13 July 2020; the decision to give notice to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the composition of the Judicial Council of the Republic of North Macedonia (hereinafter “the State Judicial Council” or “the SJC”) which established professional misconduct on the part of the applicant, the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the SJC to give a ruling on professional misconduct in respect of retired judges and the rejection of the appeal lodged by the applicant against the SJC’s decision following a remittal, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the exemption of Judge Jovan Ilievski, the judge elected in respect of North Macedonia, from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court) and the decision of the President of the Chamber to appoint Judge Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir to sit as an   ad hoc   judge (Article   26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule   29 of the Rules of Court); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 24 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the fairness of the proceedings in which the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”) established that the applicant, a retired judge, had committed professional misconduct in performing her judicial functions. In particular, the case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention that certain members of the SJC voted for the final decision of the SJC in her case, in violation of the procedural rules; that a member of the SJC who had participated in the proceedings against the applicant before her case was remitted by a second ‑ instance panel formed within the Supreme Court (“the Appeal Panel”), was subsequently replaced by another member of the SJC who had not participated in the previous stage of the proceedings; and that the SJC did not have jurisdiction to rule in professional misconduct proceedings against a retired judge. Lastly, the case concerns the applicant’s complaint that domestic law prevented her from appealing against the final decision of the SJC, delivered following the remittal of her case. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Skopje. She was represented by Mr V. Skrcheski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. I.         BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was a judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance no.   1 until May 2007, when she was dismissed from judicial office. The proceedings for her dismissal were described in the case of Gerovska Popčevska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no.   48783/07, §§   7-15, 7 January 2016). Following her dismissal, the applicant worked as a lawyer. 6 .     In a judgment of 7 January 2016 the Court found a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention in the proceedings for the applicant’s dismissal, holding that the SJC had lacked the requisite impartiality and independence, given the participation of the then President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice in the SJC’s decision dismissing the applicant (ibid., §§   47-56 and point   2 of the operative provisions in that case). 7 .     On 17 February 2016 the applicant retired. II.       PROFESSIONAL MISCOUNDUCT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT 8 .     On 4 May 2016 the applicant submitted a request for the reopening of the proceedings before the SJC, in view of the Court’s judgment of 7   January   2016 (see paragraph 6 above). 9.     On 23 January 2018 the SJC appointed its then President   Z.K. (hereinafter “the complainant”) to act as a complainant in the applicant’s case before the SJC. 10.     On 15 February 2018 the SJC allowed the applicant’s request for the reopening of the proceedings. 11 .     On 25 April 2018, referring to section 58 of the 2006 Act on the State Judicial Council (“the 2006 SJC Act”, see paragraph 32 below), the SJC established a commission (“the Commission”), which included SJC member V.B. and four other SJC members, and was tasked with gathering data and evidence relevant for the proceedings against the applicant. 12 .     On 22 May 2019 the SJC recused one of its members (K.Z., who was not a member of the Commission referred to in paragraph 11 above) from the applicant’s case. 13 .     On the same day, the SJC established professional misconduct on the part of the applicant, but did not dismiss her from judicial office as she was no longer a sitting judge. The SJC found that she had acted unconscientiously and unprofessionally in a civil case and had thus committed professional misconduct under section 75(1)(2) in conjunction with section 74(1)(2) of the Courts Act (see paragraphs 29 and 30 below). 14.     On 27 June 2019 the applicant appealed against the SJC’s decision. She argued, among other things, that the SJC did not have jurisdiction to rule in professional misconduct proceedings against a person who was no longer a judge. 15 .     On 8 October 2019 an Appeal Panel formed within the Supreme Court accepted her appeal, quashed the SJC’s decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that from sections 74(1)(2) and 75(1)(2) of the Courts Act, on which the SJC had relied (see paragraph 13 above), it did not emerge that the SJC could adopt a declaratory ruling that a person had committed professional misconduct in the performance of his or her judicial functions, but that the SJC could only dismiss a sitting judge if he or she had committed professional misconduct. In addition, under sections 55 and 58 of the 2006 SJC Act (see paragraph 32 below), the SJC could dismiss a judge or stay the professional misconduct proceedings. Lastly, the SJC had not indicated which versions of the Courts Act and the SJC Act (which had been amended several times) it had applied to the applicant’s case. 16.     On 22 October 2019 the SJC adopted a decision replacing all members of the five-member Commission established in April 2018 (see paragraph   11 above), except for V.B. 17 .     On 12 December 2019 the Commission heard the applicant and the complainant. On 25 December 2019 it submitted a report to the SJC proposing that the SJC dismiss the applicant, which in the Commission’s view was the sole possibility under the SJC Act. 18 .     On 26 December 2019 V.B.’s term of office as a member of the SJC expired.   In a written submission to the SJC dated 7 February 2020, the applicant argued that she had become aware that the composition of the Commission had changed, in view of the expiration of V.B.’s term of office. She requested that the Commission in its new composition hold a hearing and submit a new proposal to the SJC in respect of her case. The Government submitted that V.B. was never replaced as a member of the Commission. 19 .     On 10 February 2020 the SJC (which, as confirmed by the Government, had 14 members at the time) held a session in the presence of 12 of its members, and in the absence of the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court, who were its ex   officio members . The part of the SJC’s session at which the applicant’s case was discussed was not attended by K.Z. who had earlier been recused (see paragraph 12 above). The SJC further recused another member of the SJC (Z.T., who was also not a member of the Commission). Lastly, the complainant (Z.K., see paragraph   9 above) stated that he would not participate in the SJC’s vote in respect of the applicant’s case. 20 .     At the session, the president of the Commission presented its report and the proposal that the applicant be dismissed (see paragraph 17 above). Following deliberations, the SJC decided that the Commission’s proposal should be amended, given that the applicant had already retired and, consequently, could not be dismissed.   The president of the Commission orally amended the proposal, stating that the SJC should establish that the applicant had performed her judicial functions unprofessionally and unconscientiously. By nine votes of the then-members of the SJC, excluding the Minister of Justice, the President of the Supreme Court, and K.Z., Z.K. and Z.T. (see paragraph 19 above), the SJC accepted that proposal and held that while performing her judicial functions the applicant had committed professional misconduct under section 75(1)(2) and (9) in conjunction with section 74(1)(2) of the 2006 Courts Act (see paragraphs 29 and 30 below). The SJC found that the 2006 SJC Act as amended in 2018 (“the 2018 SJC Act”) was applicable to the applicant’s case, pursuant to section 52(2) of the 2018 amendments (see paragraph 33 below). The SJC based its decision on section   31(1)(7) of the 2018 SJC Act (cited in paragraph 34 below), according to which the SJC was competent to establish unprofessional and unconscientious performance of judicial functions. 21.     On 5 March 2020 the applicant appealed against the SJC’s decision. She argued notably that the SJC could not adopt a declaratory ruling of professional misconduct, and that the SJC had not complied with the Appeal Panel’s instructions set out in its decision of 8 October 2019 (see paragraph   15 above). She argued that the SJC had inconsistently applied the different versions of the procedural rules, and that the 2018 SCJ Act could not apply to her case, as it was in contravention with the version of the SJC Act prior to its 2018 amendments and with the Rules of Procedure of the SJC (see paragraph 36 below). She further asked for an Appeal Panel to verify whether the SJC had adopted its decision with the requisite majority, given that certain SJC members had been recused (see paragraphs 12 and 19 above) and others had not had the right to vote. On 10   March 2020 she supplemented her appeal, arguing that section 31(1)(7) of the 2018 SJC Act (cited in paragraph 34 below) could not have been applied to a former judge. 22 .     On 20 March 2020 the SJC informed the applicant that it had adopted the decision for professional misconduct (see paragraph 20 above) with 9   votes out of the 12 SJC members present at the session. The complainant and the two recused SJC members had not participated in the voting. 23 .     By a decision of 24 March 2020, served on the applicant on 7   April   2020, the SJC rejected the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible, referring to section   96(4) of the 2018 SJC Act (cited in paragraph 34 below) under which, following a remittal, the SJC adopted a final decision, assessing ( ценејќи ги ) the Appeal Panel’s instructions. III.     OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION 24.     On 13 November 2019 the Committee of Ministers closed its supervision of the execution of the Court’s judgment in   Gerovska Popčevska (cited in paragraph 6 above; see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)300). 25.     On 4 March 2020 the applicant lodged an application before the Constitutional Court for a constitutional review of section 96(4) of the 2018 SJC Act (cited in paragraph 34 below). On 22 September 2021 the Constitutional Court rejected her application, referring to its earlier decision in which a similar application had been rejected because the 2019 SJC Act (see paragraph 35 below) had in the meantime replaced the 2006 SJC Act and all its amendments. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.         DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.    The 1991 Constitution, as amended by the 2005 Constitutional Amendments 26 .     Article 25   of the 1991 Constitution guarantees the right to respect for and protection of the privacy of personal and family life, and of dignity and reputation. 27.     The other relevant provisions of the Constitution and the corresponding amendments were presented in Ilievska and Zdraveva v.   North Macedonia (nos. 19689/21 and 42794/22, §§ 29-36, 13   November 2025) and Ribarev v. North Macedonia (no. 39987/22, §§ 26-33, 13   November 2025). B.    Courts Act ( Закон за судовите , Official Gazette no. 58/2006) 28.     Under section 73(1)(3) of the 2006 Courts Act the judicial functions of a judge were terminated when he or she fulfilled the conditions for retirement. 29 .     Under section 74(1)(2), unprofessional and unconscientious performance of judicial functions was, under conditions established by law, a ground for the dismissal of a judge. 30 .     Under section 75(1), unconscientious, slow ( ненавремено ) or negligent ( немарно ) performance of judicial functions in individual cases (section 75(1)(2)), and a breach of relevant regulations, or violating in another manner the independence of the judges (section 75(1)(9)), amounted to unprofessional and unconscientious performance of judicial functions within the meaning of section 74(1)(2) (see preceding paragraph). 31.     The Courts Act was subsequently amended in 2008, 2010, 2018 and 2019. C.    State Judicial Council Act ( Закон за судскиот совет , Official Gazette no. 60/06; “the 2006 SJC Act”) and its subsequent amendments 32 .     Under section 55 of the 2006 SJC Act, when a request for disciplinary proceedings concerning a judge was submitted to the SJC, a five-member disciplinary commission was established to gather data and submit a report to the SJC. The SJC then either initiated or stayed the disciplinary proceedings. Under section 58(1) and (2), professional misconduct proceedings were conducted under the same rules provided in section 55 (that is, the rules concerning disciplinary proceedings), but by a five-member commission for establishing professional misconduct. Under section   58(4), the SJC could either stay the proceedings or dismiss the judge for professional misconduct. 33 .     The 2006 SJC Act was amended on five occasions between 2010 and 2017, and once again in 2018 with amendments which entered into force on 16   May 2018. Pursuant to section 52(2), the 2018 amendments applied to dismissal proceedings initiated under the previous versions of the SJC Act. Under section 52(3), the 2018 amendments applied to previously initiated disciplinary proceedings. 34 .     The relevant provisions of the 2006 SJC Act as amended in 2018 (“the 2018 SJC Act”) read as follows: Purpose of establishment Section 2 “[The SJC] is an autonomous and independent body of the judiciary. [It] ensures and guarantees the autonomy and independence of the judiciary through the exercise of its functions in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.” 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 15 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 Minister of Justice ... shall participate in [the SJC’s] work without the right to vote.” Term of office of [the SJC’s] members Section 7 “(1) The term of office of the elected [SJC] members shall be six years with the possibility of re-election. (2) The term of office 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 term of office of the President ... and the Deputy ... shall be two years, without the possibility of re-election. ...” Conditions for electing a member of [the SJC] from among judges 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 five years’ experience as a judge; - [he or she] has received the highest appraisal notes in the last three years ...; and - [he or she] enjoys the reputation and has the integrity to perform the functions of a [SJC] member and has the social skills [requisite] for performing judicial functions, for which integrity tests and psychological tests are conducted. (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 15 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; and - [he or she] enjoys the reputation and has the integrity ... and social skills [requisite] for performing the functions of a member of the [SJC], for which integrity tests and psychological tests are conducted. (3) At the proposal of the President of [the State], Parliament ... may elect a person as a member of [the SJC] who ...: ... - [is a] lawyer with at least 15 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; and - enjoys the reputation and has the integrity ... and social skills [requisite] for performing the functions of a member of the [SJC], for which integrity tests and psychological tests are conducted.” Termination of the term of office of a member of [the SJC] Section 30 “(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] fulfilled the conditions for retirement, 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. ...” Temporary suspension ... Section 30-a   “(1) A member of [the SJC] may be temporarily suspended ... if: - an indictment [against him or her] has been approved in the cases referred to in section   30(1)(4) of this Act. (2) A decision for temporary suspension ... shall be made by [the SJC] with a two-thirds majority of votes from the total number of members with the right to vote, whereby the [SJC] member against whom the proceedings have been initiated shall be recused from the session and from voting.” Competence Section 31 “(1) [The SJC] shall have the competence: [1] to elect and dismiss judges; [2] to elect and dismiss the presidents of the courts; [3] to determine the termination of the office of a judge; [4] to elect and dismiss lay judges; [5] to monitor and evaluate the work of the judges; [6] to decide on disciplinary accountability of judges; [7] to establish unprofessional or unconscientious performance of judicial functions; ...” Grounds for dismissal of a judge Section 53 “(1) A judge shall be dismissed from judicial office: 1) for a serious disciplinary breach, 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 54 “(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 for establishing professional misconduct on the part of a judge or a court president Section 56 “(1) The ... request for establishing professional misconduct on the part of a judge or a court president shall be submitted to the member of [the SJC who acts as a] rapporteur ... who shall assess whether the request is timely and complete. (2) If the request is untimely and incomplete, the rapporteur shall submit a proposal to [the SJC] ... which will reject the untimely or incomplete request with a decision[. I]f the request is timely and complete, [the SJC] shall form a Commission for establishing professional misconduct on the part of a judge or a court president (hereinafter: ‘the Commission’) consisting of a President and two members ... both from [the SJC] members elected by the judges and by Parliament. (3) If a member of [the SJC] has submitted the request [for establishing professional misconduct], he or she cannot be a rapporteur or a member of the Commission from subsection 2 of this section.” Service Section 56-a “(1) The Commission shall serve the request and evidence personally on the judge or court president. (2) 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. (3) The judge or court president ... shall have the right to be defended by a lawyer ... (4) Together with the reply to the request, the judge or court president shall submit all evidence in support of the reply. ...” Gathering data and evidence Section 56-b “(1) The Commission shall gather data and evidence ... for establishing the matters ( состојбата ) relating to the request. ...” Hearing concerning the request Section 56-c “(1) The Commission shall schedule a hearing within seven days of receiving the judge’s or court president’s reply to the request. ...” Summons to a hearing Section 56-d “(1) The judge or court president ... and the person who has submitted the request shall be summoned to the hearing. (2) If the judge or the court president duly summoned does not appear at the hearing and does not justify [his or her] absence, the hearing shall be held.” Hearing Section 56-e “(1) At the hearing, evidence proposed by the person who has submitted the request and by the judge or the court president shall be presented, as well as evidence obtained by the Commission. (2) The judge or the court president has the right to comment on all evidence presented at the hearing, orally ... or in writing within three days [after the hearing].” Report of the Commission Section 56-g “(1) The Commission shall submit a report ... to [the SJC] within 15 days from the date of the hearing ... with a proposal as to [whether the SJC should]: - terminate the proceedings; - impose a disciplinary sanction; or - dismiss the judge or the court president ... (2) The report should contain all the documents and files that the Commission had at its disposal during the proceeding, the statement of the judge or court president, the description of the actions carried out, as well as a reasoned proposal for [the SJC’s] decision. (3) All documents ... must be available to [the SJC’s] members.” [The SJC’s] deliberations ... Section 60 “(1) The president of the Commission shall present its report and proposal at [the SJC’s] deliberations. (2) The [SJC] deliberates upon the Commission’s report and decides upon [the Commission’s] proposal. (3) The President and the members of the Commission shall participate in the deliberations before [the SJC], but they shall be exempted from voting on the final decision. (4) 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. (5) The decision from subsection (2) of this section shall be adopted ... with a two-thirds majority of the total number of [SJC] members with the right to vote, [taking into account ( а во врска со )] subsections 3 and 4 of this section. (6) If the judge or the court president ... submits, during the proceedings, a request for termination of their judicial office, [the SJC] will stay the proceedings with a decision and declare termination of the judicial office, at his [or her] request.” Decisions of [the SJC] Section 60-a (1) After the deliberations, [the SJC] can decide ...: - to terminate the proceedings; - to impose a disciplinary sanction; or - to dismiss the judge or the court president ...” Right to appeal Section 96 (1) The judge or the court president has the right to appeal before the Supreme Court, within eight days from the day of receipt of [the SJC’s] decision. (2) An Appeal Panel shall be composed of nine members, three of whom shall be judges of the Supreme Court, four judges from the appeals courts and two judges from the court where the judge against whom the proceeding were conducted sat as a judge [. T]he members shall be selected publicly by drawing lots at a plenary session of the Supreme Court [and] ... of the relevant court, no later than ten days from the day of receipt of the appeal. (3) The Appeal Panel shall, at the latest within 30 days of its establishment, decide the appeal by either confirming or quashing the [SJC’s] decision. (4) In the remitted proceedings, [the SJC] shall take a final decision, assessing ( ценејќи ги ) the instructions of the Appeal Panel. (5) 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 the proceedings following a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg Section 97 “(1) When [the Court] finds a violation ... the judge or court president ... may submit a request to [the SJC] for the reopening of the proceedings, within 30 days, but no later than three years from the finality of [the Court’s] judgment ... ... (3) In the reopened proceedings, [the SJC] must respect the legal positions expressed in the final judgment of [the Court] ... ... (10) The reopened proceedings in the part concerning the violation found shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this law for establishing professional misconduct of a judge or court president, in which new evidence can be proposed and presented. (11) The dissatisfied party has a right to appeal against the decision reached in the reopened proceedings, before the Appeal Panel within 15 days from the receipt of the decision.” Section 97-a “In the proceeding before [the SJC], the judge or court president ... has the right to a fair trial according to the guarantees established in Article 6 of [the Convention].” 35 .     On 30 May 2019 a new SJC Act entered into force, replacing the 2006 SJC Act and its amendments (see paragraph 33 above). It was replaced by a new 2025 SJC Act which entered into force on 8 January 2026. Under section 78(1) of the 2025 SJC Act, the judge or court president whose Convention rights or freedoms have been found by the Court to have been violated may request the reopening of the proceedings or the execution of the Court’s judgment within 90 days from the date of service of the final judgment. Under section   78(3), if from the Court judgment a need for the reopening of the proceedings emerges, in the reopened proceedings the SJC is obliged to respect the legal positions expressed in the Court’s judgment. Under   section   78(9), the reopened proceedings, in their part concerning the violation found, are to be conducted pursuant to the 2025 SJC Act (notably its section   66 which regulates professional misconduct proceedings ( постапка за утврдување одговорност ) in respect of a judge or a court president). D.    Rules of Procedure of the SJC ( Деловник за работа на Судскиот совет , Official Gazette nos. 197/15 and 12/17) 36 .     Under Rule 32 § 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the SJC, adopted in 2015 and amended in 2017, the reopened proceedings before the SJC following a judgment of the Court finding a violation were conducted in accordance with the law in force at the time of the initial proceedings before the SJC. E.     Practice of the Constitutional Court 37 .     The relevant practice of the Constitutional Court has been summarised in Ilievska and Zdraveva (cited above, §§ 44 and 45) and Ribarev (cited above, §§ 37 and 38). II.       INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL 38.     The relevant international material has been presented in Ilievska and Zdraveva (cited above, §§ 47-65) and Ribarev (cited above, §§   40-58). THE LAW SCOPE OF THE CASE 39.     The Court notes that in her reply to the Government’s observations the applicant raised new complaints, concerning an alleged violation of the presumption of innocence (namely, that the SJC which had adopted the final decision had previously formed an opinion as to whether the applicant had committed professional misconduct). She further complained that the proposal of the Commission at the session of the SJC when it had adopted the final decision (see paragraph 20 above) had been amended contrary to the relevant SJC Act. Lastly, the applicant argued that there had been a violation of the principle of equality of arms in the proceedings before the SJC and that the SJC had not adequately reasoned its final decision in her case. 40.     In the Court’s view, these complaints are not an elaboration of the applicant’s original complaints to the Court which were communicated to the Government. They therefore fall outside of the scope of the present case and will not be taken into consideration (compare , mutatis mutandis , Tereshchenko v.   Russia , no.   33761/05, § 75, 5 June 2014, and Bogdan Shevchuk v.   Ukraine , no.   55737/16, § 32, 24 April 2025). II.       ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 41 .     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the members of the Commission which had prepared the report for the SJC had later voted for the SJC’s final decision in her case, contrary to the applicable procedural rules; that in the remitted proceedings before the SJC, V.B. had been replaced with another member who had not participated in the previous stage of the proceedings, and who had replaced an SJC member with no right to vote; that the SJC had not had jurisdiction to give a ruling on professional misconduct in respect of retired judges; and that the SJC had rejected her second appeal. The relevant parts of Article 6 read as follows: “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” A.    Admissibility 42.     The Government did not raise any objections as to the admissibility of the applicant’s complaints. 43.     The Court, however, considers that it must ascertain whether it has jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s complaints without encroaching on the prerogatives of the respondent State and the Committee of Ministers under Article   46 of the Convention. It must also examine whether the guarantees of Article   6 of the Convention were applicable to the proceedings which took place after the reopening of the professional misconduct proceedings against the applicant on the basis of the Court’s judgment in Gerovska Popčevska v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 48783/07, 7   January   2016). These matters go to the Court’s jurisdiction, which is therefore obliged to examine them of its own motion (see Grosam v. the Czech Republic [GC], no.   19750/13, § 107, 1 June 2023, and Mehmet Zeki Doğan v. Türkiye (no.   2) , no.   3324/19, §§ 54 and   55, 13   February 2024). 1.      Whether the Court has jurisdiction   ratione materiae   under Article 46 of the Convention to examine the present application 44.     The Court reiterates that the Committee of Ministers’ role in the sphere of execution of its judgments does not prevent the Court from examining a fresh application concerning measures taken by a respondent State in the execution of a judgment if that application contains relevant new information relating to issues undecided by the initial judgment (see   Bochan v.   Ukraine   (no.   2)   [GC], no.   22251/08, § 33, ECHR 2015; Serrano Contreras v.   Spain (no.2) , no.   2236/19, §   24, 26 October 2021; and Mehmet Zeki Doğan , cited above, §   56). The determination of the existence of a “new issue” very much depends on the specific circumstances of the case in question, and distinctions between cases are not always clear-cut (see   Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal (no.   2)   [GC], no.   19867/12, § 47 (d), 11 July 2017). 45.     The applicant’s complaints in the present case relate to the jurisdiction and the composition of the SJC, as well as the applicant’s inability to challenge the SJC’s final decision, in professional misconduct proceedings against the applicant following her successful application to have the earlier dismissal proceedings against her reopened. These complaints entail “new issues” which do not concern the legal issues examined in the Court’s judgment in Gerovska Popčevska (cited above) of 7 January 2016, namely the lack of impartiality and independence of the SJC which had initially dismissed the applicant from judicial office (see paragraph 6 above). The Court therefore concludes that it is not prevented by Article 46 from examining the applicant’s new complaints raised within the ambit of the present application (no. 30989/20). 2.      Applicability of Article 6 of the Convention to the impugned proceedings 46.     The Court observes that it has not been argued by the parties that Article   6   §   1 is applicable in its criminal aspect. The Court also considers that the proceedings at issue did not concern the determination of a criminal charge and therefore the criminal limb of that Article is not engaged (compare, a fortiori , Ilievska and Zdraveva v. North Macedonia , nos.   19689/21 and 42794/22, § 70, 13 November 2025, and Ribarev v.   North Macedonia , no. 39987/22, § 65, 13 November 2025, which concerned the dismissal of judges). 47.     The Government did not contest the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb. The Court reiterates that for Article   6 §   1 in its “civil” limb to be applicable, there must be a “dispute” (“ contestation ” in the French text) over a “right” which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, irrespective of whether it is protected under the Convention. The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, lastly, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, among many other authorities, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §   44, 25   September 2018;   Grzęda v. Poland [GC], no. 43572/18, §   257, 15   March   2022; and   Fabbri and Others v. San Marino [GC], nos.   6319/21 and 2   others, § 76, 24 September 2024). Lastly, the right must be a “civil” right (see Grzęda , § 257, and Fabbri and Others , § 76, both cited above). 48.     Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant, who had been dismissed from judicial office in May 2007 and had been since then working as a lawyer, retired in February 2016, before submitting in May   2016 her request for the reopening of the proceedings concerning her dismissal which had ended in 2007 (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above). For that reason, in the ensuing professional misconduct proceedings against the applicant the SJC did not dismiss her from judicial office, but it rather ruled that she had committed professional misconduct, prior to her retirement, while she had been performing her judicial functions (see paragraph 20 above). The proceedings in question, therefore, did not concern the applicant’s civil right to continue serving her term of office as a judge (compare and contrast, among many others,   Ilievska and Zdraveva , cited above, §§ 73-74; Ribarev , cited above, §§ 68-69; Mnatsakanyan v.   Armeni a , no.   2463/12, §§   48-59, 6   December 2022;   Kamenos v. Cyprus , no. 147/07, §§   66-88, 31   October   2017; and   Sturua v. Georgia , no. 45729/05, §§   24-27, 28   March   2017). 49.     In this context, however, the Court observes that in the impugned proceedings the SJC concluded that the professional misconduct on the side of the applicant had constituted unprofessional and unconscientious performance of judicial functions within the meaning of section 74(1)(2) of the 2010 Courts Act (cited in paragraph 29 above). There is no doubt that the SJC’s finding that she had performed the judicial function unprofessionally and unconscientiously concerned the applicant’s personal integrity and professional competence as a former judge. It therefore had a direct impact on the applicant’s social and professional reputation (contrast Aktay v.   Türkiye (dec.), nos.   56064/16, 58000/16 and 15087/17, §   44, 9   January   2024, and Marušić v. Croatia   (dec.), no.   79821/12, §§   76 and 77, 23   May   2017; and compare, for example, in the context of Article   8, Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine , nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, §   86, 12   January 2023 , and Juszczyszyn v. Poland , no. 35599/20, §   233, 6   October   2022). The Court reiterates that the right to enjoy a good reputation   is a “civil right” within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 (see, for example, Madaus v.   Germany , no. 44164/14, § 15, 9 June 2016, with further references, and Grădinar v.   Moldova , no. 7170/02, § 92, 8 April 2008). This right is protected under domestic law (see paragraph 26 above; and compare, for example, Pocius v.   Lithuania , no. 35601/04, § 41, 6 July 2010). The Court considers that a person’s reputation developed during his or her professional career forms part of that person’s social identity and does not cease to exist with retirement. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings for professional misconduct against the applicant as a retired judge directly concerned her civil right to enjoy a good reputation. 50.     In the light of the above, the Court finds that the civil limb of Article   6