CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 36229/25 Massimiliano SIMONCINI against San Marino lodged on 13 November 2025 communicated on 20 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings following a recruitment procedure. In 2023 the applicant (at the time an Uditore Commissariale , ‘UD’) and two other UDs unsuccessfully participated in a recruitment procedure to become a Commissario della Legge (‘CoL’ – a first-instance judge). The successful candidate, following a recommendation of the Chief Justice and the eventual decision of the Judicial Council (‘JC’) in charge of the procedure, was a certain Z. The applicant challenged the latter procedure in proceedings no. 3/2024 and 13/2024, which were treated conjointly and dismissed, by final judgments of 23 June 2025 notified to the applicant’s lawyer on 15 July 2023. At both levels of jurisdiction, the case was decided by a judge who was not yet confirmed in office on a permanent basis. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complains of a “structural violation” due to the concentration of powers (organisational and disciplinary) of the Chief Justice and the JC, allowing for internal pressure on members of the tribunals, as evidenced by the decisions in his case. Under Article 6 the applicant further complains specifically of the lack of independence and impartiality of the judges deciding the administrative proceedings in his case who had not yet been confirmed in office as permanent judges and whose confirmation in office depended on the Chief Justice and the JC, who were the counter parties in the proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Were the administrative courts which dealt with the applicant’s case independent and impartial as required by Article   6 §   1 [ lex specialis to Article   13] of the Convention?   (i) Bearing in mind that both the first instance and appeal judges were subject to career development or disciplinary actions which depended on the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council, the former being a key player in the competition being challenged by the applicant and the latter being a party to the proceedings, were the proceedings before those courts compatible with the principles of independence and impartiality required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for reference purposes, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, §   79, 25 September 2018; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v.   Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 157-63, 6 November 2018; Thiam v. France , no. 80018/12, § 85, 18 October 2018; and Sramek v.   Austria , 22 October 1984, § 42, Series A no. 84)? In this context what procedural safeguards were in place (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], 2020, § 234)? The parties are requested to compare and contrast any safeguards applicable in the context of disciplinary proceedings and the respective judicial review.   (ii) In the present case were the concerns related to the independence and impartiality of the administrative courts more pronounced bearing in mind that the monocratic judges at both instances had not yet been confirmed on a permanent basis, and thus would inevitably depend on the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council, for them to be confirmed in office?