CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 février 2022

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 259 February 2022 Levrault v. Monaco (communicated case) - 47070/20   Article 6 Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Non-renewal of a foreign judge’s secondment to the judicial services of the respondent State, complaint concerning inadequacy of procedural guarantees: communicated The applicant, a French judge, was seconded to the Principality of Monaco to discharge the duties of investigating judge for a three-year period expiring in August 2019. At the end of 2018 the applicant applied for renewal of his secondment for three more years. The Monegasque authorities, followed by the French authorities, issued a favourable opinion. In June 2019, however, the Monegasque authorities stated that in fact they preferred not to request the renewal of the said secondment. Asked about the reasons for this change of position, the Director of Judicial Services of the Principality replied that such decisions constituted sovereign acts falling within the government’s prerogative, for which reasons did not have to be given and which lay outside the supervision of the courts. He further specified that the Principality’s change of position had stemmed from the introduction of a new criminal-law policy, as well as the applicant’s relations with specific criminal-law professionals. The applicant’s term of office was terminated by sovereign order. He appealed, unsuccessfully. The applicant regards this refusal to renew his secondment as an infringement of his judicial independence. He further considers that the dismissal of his action to set aside the decision was insufficiently reasoned, and complains of a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the Supreme Court. Communicated under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (with questions concerning the applicability of its civil limb and the selection procedure for members of the Supreme Court).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes