003-4162776-4918736

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 425 (2012)   20.11.2012   Slovak Constitutional Court failed to address in detail doubts as   to impartiality of its judges in disciplinary proceedings against   Supreme Court President   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Harabin v. Slovakia (application   no. 58688/11), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The case concerned the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the President of the   Slovak Supreme Court for having prevented an audit at that court, and in particular his   complaint that several of the judges who decided his case were biased.   The Court held in particular that only after establishing whether or not the challenges to   the judges’ participation in the proceedings were justified could the question have arisen   as to whether there was any justification – namely the need to maintain the Slovak   Constitutional Court’s capacity to determine the case – for not excluding them.   Principal facts   The applicant, Štefan Harabin, is a Slovak national who was born in 1957 and lives in   Bratislava. He has been the President of the Slovak Supreme Court since June 2009   (after having previously held this office between 1998 and 2003) and he was the   Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic between July 2006 and June 2009.   In July and August 2010, Mr Harabin prevented a group of auditors instructed by the   Minister of Finance from carrying out an audit at the Supreme Court, the aim of which   was in particular to examine the use of public funds, the efficiency of financial   management and the elimination of shortcomings identified in a previous audit. Mr   Harabin informed the Minister of Finance that the Ministry lacked the power to carry out   the audit and that it was the Supreme Audit Office which had the authority to do so.   In November 2010, the Minister of Justice initiated disciplinary proceedings before the   Constitutional Court against Mr Harabin for having prevented the audit. During the   proceedings, the Minister of Justice challenged three constitutional judges for bias, on   the ground that they had had a personal relationship with Mr Harabin for several years   and that they had been nominated to posts in the judiciary and public administration by   the same political party.   Mr Harabin challenged four different constitutional judges for bias. He argued in   particular that two of them had made negative statements about him in the media, that   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   a third judge was a member of the same chamber as those two judges and that a fourth   judge had been convicted of a tax offence and had been criticised by Mr Harabin for   ignoring an invitation by the Constitutional Court to reconsider his position as a judge. In   reply to that objection, neither of the judges considered themselves biased and, in May   2011, the court decided not to exclude any of the seven judges from dealing with the   case. The fact that four of those judges had previously been excluded from other sets of   proceedings involving Mr Harabin could not affect that position. The court noted in   particular that the determination of the disciplinary offence allegedly committed by Mr   Harabin was within the exclusive jurisdiction of its plenary session, and considered that   excessive formalism posed the risk of rendering the proceedings ineffective.   On 29 June 2011, the Constitutional Court found Mr Harabin guilty of a serious   disciplinary offence, holding in particular that he had prevented the group of auditors   from carrying out an audit at the Supreme Court on four occasions, and imposed a   disciplinary sanction on him, which consisted of a 70% reduction of his annual salary.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1, Mr Harabin complained that the proceedings before the   Constitutional Court had been unfair, alleging in particular that a number of the judges   who decided on the case had been biased. He also made a number of other complaints   under Article 6 § 1, including that the court had erroneously interpreted the relevant   provisions as to what the elements of a serious disciplinary offence were. He further   made a number of other complaints relating to the proceedings and the sanction   imposed, invoking Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14   (prohibition of discrimination).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 September   2011.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President,   Egbert Myjer (Netherlands),   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom),   Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania),   Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia),   Luis López Guerra (Spain),   Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),   and also Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court underlined that it was not its task to examine whether Mr Harabin had been   justified in not allowing the auditors of the Ministry of Finance to carry out the audit. Its   task was exclusively to determine whether his rights under the Convention had been   complied with in the proceedings before the Slovak Constitutional Court in which he had   been sanctioned for a disciplinary offence.   The Court further stressed that it was particularly relevant that the guarantees of the   right to a fair trial under Article 6 were complied with in proceedings initiated by a   Government against a judge in his capacity as president of the Supreme Court, given   that the confidence of the public in the functioning of the judiciary at the highest national   level was at stake.   Under Slovak law, disciplinary proceedings against the president of the Supreme Court   could only be decided by a majority of the plenary of the Constitutional Court. Faced   with a situation where the parties challenged seven of its thirteen judges for bias, the   Constitutional Court had had to balance between two interests, namely the need to   respond to the requests for exclusion of those judges and the need to maintain its   capacity to determine the case.   The Court [the European Court of Human Rights] considered that in that balancing   exercise the Slovak Constitutional Court had failed to take an appropriate stance under   Article 6. Firstly, two of the judges challenged by Mr Harabin and two of the judges   challenged by the Minister had been excluded in earlier set of proceedings involving Mr   Harabin. Given that doubts were therefore likely to arise as to their impartiality, the   Constitutional Court should have – but had not – given convincing arguments as to why   the challenges could not be accepted in the disciplinary proceedings. Secondly, the   Constitutional Court had not taken a stand as to whether any of the other reasons   evoked by the parties would have justified the respective judges’ exclusion.   Only after answering the parties’ arguments and establishing whether or not the   challenges to the judges were justified could the question have arisen as to whether   there was any proclaimed need and justification for not excluding any of the judges. The   need to maintain the Constitutional Court’s capacity to determine the case could   therefore not justify the participation of the judges in respect of whose alleged lack of   impartiality the Constitutional Court had failed to convincingly dissipate doubts.   Mr Harabin’s right to a hearing by an impartial tribunal had therefore not been   respected. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Having regard to that conclusion, and considering that it had only limited powers to deal   with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by national courts, the Court did not find it   necessary to examine separately Mr Harabin’s other complaints relating to the alleged   unfairness of the disciplinary proceedings against him.   The Court further declared Mr Harabin’s other complaints inadmissible, as they were   either manifestly ill-founded or he had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in their   respect.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The court held that Slovakia was to pay Mr Harabin 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-   pecuniary damage and EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   4