CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37954/21 Trajche SKRCHESKI against North Macedonia lodged on 16 July 2021 communicated on 10 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns disciplinary proceedings against the applicant (a former judge). In July 2019 the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”) dismissed the applicant under the Courts Act of 2006 (as amended in 2008 and 2010) for professional misconduct, namely for having failed to publicly pronounce certain judgments and having belatedly drafted others. In his appeal, the applicant argued that an Act amending the Courts Act had entered into force in May 2019 (“the 2019 Act”) which no longer defined his actions as professional misconduct and required (unlike the 2006 Act) that additional conditions were met (intent or obvious negligence on his part and serious consequences resulting from the alleged misconduct), which were not established in his case. The appeal panel formed within the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, remitted the case and instructed the SJC to take into account the principle of application of the more lenient law. The applicant then retired. In 2020 the SJC did not dismiss him, but acknowledged that he had committed the professional misconduct in question despite the fact that his office of judge had ended. It applied the 2006 Courts Act holding that the 2019 Act contained the same provisions for professional misconduct. Under the relevant law, the decision of the SJC of 2020 (following a remittal) is not amenable to appeal. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the fairness of the proceedings against him.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the manner in which the domestic courts applied the relevant provisions of the Courts Act compatible with the applicant’s rights under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention and with the principle of legal certainty guaranteed by that provision in particular (see, for example, Alkes v. Turkey (no. 2) , no.   16047/04, § 19, 8   June 2010)?