003-8348237-11784213

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 228 (2025)   07.10.2025   Former judge did not have effective legal avenue to challenge decision not to   reappoint him following his term as a government minister   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Misiūnas v. Lithuania (application no. 38687/22) the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1   (right of access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The applicant is a former judge who had taken up a post in the Government. When his term in   Government came to an end, he submitted requests to be reappointed as a judge. The President of   the Republic declined to reappoint him. The domestic courts refused to accept for examination   claims brought by the applicant, holding, in particular, that it was within the powers of the President   to decide on judicial appointments, and that they had no jurisdiction to hear his case.   The Court found that the domestic courts had failed to provide an effective legal remedy capable of   addressing the substance of the applicant’s complaint, despite him having a legitimate and   reasonable expectation that his application for re-entry into the judicial profession would be given   proper consideration. There had been no exceptional or compelling reasons to justify the lack of   judicial review of the President’s decision.   Principal facts   The applicant, Eimutis Misiūnas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Vilnius.   In 2015 the applicant was appointed as a judge of the Vilnius City District Court. In 2016 he was   dismissed from that post, at his own request, to take up a job in the Government. He served as   Minister of the Interior and then as the Vice-Minister of the Ministry of Defence. When his term as   Vice-Minister came to an end in December 2020, the applicant asked to be re-appointed as a judge.   In accordance with the Constitution and the Law on Courts, decisions on the appointment of judges   are made by the President of the Republic. The Law on Courts provides for the possibility for a   former judge who has discontinued her or his career as a judge to apply, within a certain period, to   be reappointed without having to undergo a competitive exam or selection proceedings.   In January 2021 state officials, including the President of the Republic, made public statements   expressing the view that the applicant would not be reappointed for reasons including concerns   about his impartiality and the idea that a “cooling off” period was necessary after a political post. No   formal decision on reappointment was taken.   The applicant instituted administrative proceedings. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court   refused to accept the claim for examination, considering that the activities of the President of the   Republic could not be the subject of an administrative dispute. The applicant subsequently instituted   civil proceedings. Those proceedings were ultimately unsuccessful, with the Lithuanian courts   holding that it was within the powers of the President of the Republic to decide on judicial   appointments and so the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claims.   1. 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.   In 2022 the applicant submitted a new request to the President of the Republic, asking to be   reappointed as a judge. Having been issued security clearance, the applicant was interviewed by the   Judicial Council, which subsequently voted in favour of his reappointment. Nonetheless, the   President of the Republic declined to reappoint him. No official reasons were given but the applicant   was told that there were concerns about his activities while he had been in Government and his   future plans to take part in politics. A further set of civil proceedings instituted by the applicant were   unsuccessful. The Vilnius Regional Court held that the courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the   applicant’s claim. The Court of Appeal upheld that finding and the Supreme Court refused to accept   for examination an appeal by the applicant on points of law.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been denied an   effective right of access to a court as the Lithuanian courts had refused to hear his case concerning   the President of the Republic’s decision not to reappoint him as a judge.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 August 2022.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Arnfinn Bårdsen (Norway), President,   Saadet Yüksel (Türkiye),   Jovan Ilievski (North Macedonia),   Peeter Roosma (Estonia),   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir (Iceland),   Stéphane Pisani (Luxembourg),   Juha Lavapuro (Finland),   and also Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court concluded that the domestic courts had failed to provide the applicant with an effective   legal remedy capable of addressing the substance of his complaints.   The Court accepted that there was arguably a “right” recognised under Lithuanian law to a fair   procedure in judicial re-appointment, including the right to be protected against arbitrary and   discriminatory rejection and a “right” to a fair procedure in the examination of an application for the   return to a judicial post.   The Court emphasised that a clear link existed between the integrity of the judicial appointment   process and the requirement of judicial independence. The relevant international standards required   that any decision concerning the selection and career of judges, or at least the procedure under   which such a decision was made, should be amenable to judicial review. In view of the particular   circumstances of the case, the exclusion of the applicant, a judicial candidate who met the statutory   eligibility requirements, from a reappointment procedure in the absence of any judicial review of   that decision by an ordinary tribunal or other body exercising judicial powers, could not be regarded,   in view of the importance of the protection of judicial independence, as being in the interest of a   State governed by the rule of law.   The Government essentially argued that the exclusion of judicial review had nevertheless been   called for in the circumstances of the applicant’s case given the exclusive constitutional prerogatives   and the role of the President of the Republic in the appointment of the judiciary.   However, as a former judge who had taken up a post in the Government, the applicant had the right   to be considered for the post of judge without undergoing a competitive exam or selection   procedure. When seeking reappointment, he had obtained the necessary clearances and had been   interviewed by the Judicial Council which, having assessed the applicant’s candidacy on the basis of   competency and integrity criteria, had advised the President of the Republic to appoint him to the   post of district court judge. The applicant could therefore have had a legitimate and reasonable   expectation that his application for re-entry to the judicial profession would be given proper   consideration, subject to transparent and objective evaluation, devoid of arbitrariness. While it had   been implied that statements made by the applicant concerning the possibility of his taking up   another position in Government in the future and concerns about his activities when he was   minister, might have influenced the decision of the President, no such reasons had been formally   communicated to the applicant. There was no basis for finding that the dispute concerned any   exceptional or compelling reasons that could justify its exclusion from a judicial review.   The domestic courts had failed to consider the applicant’s situation as a whole and had considered   his grievances in isolation. The Court concluded that the applicant’s attempts to obtain a judicial   review by the domestic courts, in order to effectively scrutinise any errors which might have   occurred during the reappointment proceedings, had been thwarted by the domestic courts’ failure   to provide an effective legal remedy capable of addressing the substances of the applicant’s   complaint.   The Court held that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Lithuania was to pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-   pecuniary damage.   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.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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.   3