CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 octobre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 134 October 2010 Özpınar v. Turkey - 20999/04 Judgment 19.10.2010 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Removal of judge from office for reasons partly related to her private life: violation   Article 13 Effective remedy Judge denied an effective remedy in respect of Article   8 complaint: violation   Facts – In 2002 a disciplinary investigation was opened against the applicant, who was a judge. She was criticised in particular for allegedly having a close relationship with a lawyer, whose clients had apparently benefited, as a result, from favourable decisions on her part, and also for repeatedly arriving late for work and for her unsuitable clothing and make-up. Testimony was taken from many witnesses, who gave contradictory statements, and the cases that the applicant had dealt with were examined. No information from the investigation was disclosed to her. The disciplinary investigation file was transmitted to the National Legal Service Council, which decided in 2003 to remove her from office as a judge, mainly on the grounds that she had “undermined the dignity and honour of the profession”. A request by the applicant for a review of that decision was denied. She then challenged her removal from office, which was confirmed by the National Legal Service Council in 2004, after a hearing in which she had taken part. She was notified of the refusal to reinstate her but was not told the reasons for that decision. Law – Article 8: The decision to remove the applicant from office was directly related to her conduct, both professionally and in private. Moreover, her reputation had been impugned. There had therefore been an interference with her right to respect for her private life and it could be said to have had a legitimate aim, in relation to the duty of judges to exercise restraint in order to preserve their independence and the authority of their decisions. As regards the criticisms, in the proceedings against the applicant, concerning her conduct as a judge, they had not constituted interference with her private life. The ethical obligations of judges might encroach upon their private life when their conduct tarnished the image or reputation of the judiciary. However, the applicant nevertheless remained a private person entitled to Article   8 protection. Even if certain aspects of the conduct attributed to her – in particular decisions allegedly driven by personal considerations – might have warranted her removal, the investigation had not substantiated those accusations and had taken into account numerous actions that were unrelated to her professional activity. Moreover, she had been afforded few safeguards in the proceedings against her, because she had been called before the disciplinary body very belatedly and had not received the inspection reports beforehand. Any judge who faced removal from office on grounds related to private or family life had to be afforded guarantees against arbitrariness, and in particular a guarantee of adversarial proceedings before an independent and impartial supervisory body. Such safeguards were all the more important in the applicant’s case as, with her removal from office, she had automatically lost the right to practise law. Accordingly, the interference with the applicant’s private life had not been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13 in conjunction with Article   8: The applicant had been unsuccessful in her judicial appeal against the decisions of the National Legal Service Council. The Court had previously found that the impartiality of the Council panel that examined challenges to its decisions was highly questionable. Furthermore, during the proceedings, no distinction had been made between aspects of the applicant’s private life that bore no direct connection with her duties and those that might have done. Accordingly, the applicant had not had access to a remedy meeting the minimum requirements of Article   13 for the purposes of her Article   8 complaint. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © 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