KLAEDES v. CYPRUS
Inadmissible
George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Yonko Grozev
1. The applicant, Ms Andriana Klaedes, is a British national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Nicosia. She was represented before the Court by Mr L. Loucaides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. 3. The applicant was born intersex and in 1992 underwent a feminising surgical procedure in the United Kingdom. The applicant is a lawyer and appeared before the British courts and in British society as a female. In 2006 she changed her legal identification documents in England so as to record her female name, Andriana. Previously she used the name of Andy-Tony Panteli Klaede. 4. The applicant at some stage moved to Cyprus where she is currently practising as a lawyer. For professional purposes the applicant had initially kept her original male name, Andros Klaedes, on all her cards and documents and on the Register of Advocates. 5. In the beginning the applicant appeared before the courts wearing trousers and signed all documents as “A. Klaedes”. In 2009 she started appearing in court in female attire. 6. On 11 September 2012 the applicant had a case before the Larnaca District Court (criminal jurisdiction) and appeared before Judge M. She had appeared before this judge previously in respect of other cases wearing trousers and a jacket. On the above date she was wearing a long black skirt with a black blazer and a white shirt. The applicant claims that she was publicly humiliated and degraded by Judge M. in open court. 7. According to the applicant, Judge M. started making derogative comments. He told her that she was not allowed to appear before him. When she asked him the reason for this he replied that this was because she was wearing a skirt, she was a man and he did not accept masquerading in his court. When the applicant responded that she had already appeared before another judge without a problem, he kept saying “you are a man, you are a man”. He also told her that on the Register of Advocates she was registered as Andros Klaedes. When the applicant stated that he was violating her human rights, he replied “you are a man and you are not allowed to appear in such attire”. The court room at the time was full of lawyers and other people (court staff and other audience) who started laughing at her. The applicant told the judge that he had publicly disclosed her personal data. The judge asked her to leave the court room which she did after stating “as you wish your honour, with your leave”. 8. On 19 September 2012 the President of the Cyprus Bar Association issued an affirmation that Mrs Andriana Klaedes had been entered in the Register of Advocates on 6 March 1997 and had renewed her licence from 1997 until 2012. 9. On or around 24 September 2012, the applicant appeared before the same judge for a second time wearing a skirt. She submitted that the judge had reprimanded her and had stated that she was a man and she was not allowed to appear before him for the same reasons he had told her before. Although she informed the judge that she had obtained a certificate by the Cyprus Bar Association with her female name, the judge laughed and replied that her name had not been altered in the register and that she had to leave the court room and provide him with a certificate from the Supreme Court. The court room was full of lawyers and other people who were laughing at her. The applicant left the court room humiliated. 10. The applicant submitted that these incidents had received wide publicity through the mass media for several days adding further humiliation to the applicant, her family and friends. She was subjected to mockery, ridicule, contempt and was harassed by the journalists and other people. She also had suicidal tendencies. 11. The President of the District Court of Larnaca advised her not to appear before the said judge even though she had several cases before him. 12. On 24 October 2012, following the lodging of the present application with the Court, the applicant appeared before Judge M. who informed her that he had stepped down in respect of the cases in which she was a lawyer. Her cases were transferred to another judge of the same court. However, the applicant claimed that when she appeared before the new judge, he also treated her in a similar manner, called her by her male name and addressed her as “sir” in an unnecessary repetitive manner which amounted to mockery. 13. The applicant stated that the Larnaca District Court did not keep minutes of the relevant incidents and of the conversations set out above. 14. Section 4 (4) of the Civil Wrongs law provides that no action shall be brought against any judge of any court in the Republic, other than the Supreme Court, nor against any person lawfully performing the duties of a judge of such court, nor against any official receiver, nor any member of any court martial nor against any arbitrator nor other judicial officer in respect of any civil wrong committed by him/her in his/her judicial capacity if this act caused the civil wrong within his/her jurisdiction. 15. The 1960 Constitution, which came into force when the Republic of Cyprus was established, provided for the existence of both a High Court and a Supreme Constitutional Court. These Courts were composed of Greek, Turkish and neutral judges, that is, judges from a foreign country other than Greece and Turkey. The two neutral judges presided over the Courts. After the intercommunal troubles of 1964, the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law no. 33/64 was enacted on the basis of the law of necessity. By virtue of this law, the two highest courts were merged into one, the Supreme Court of Cyprus, to which the various jurisdictions and powers of the two pre-existing courts were transferred. 16. The Supreme Court was originally composed of five judges, but the number of judges was gradually increased by legislation to its current number of thirteen judges. The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of the Republic (Article 153.2 of the Constitution). The district judges, senior district judges, presidents of district courts and judges of the courts exercising specialised jurisdiction are appointed by the Supreme Council of Judicature, a body consisting of the judges of the Supreme Court (Articles 153.8(1) and (2) and 157 of the Constitution). 17. Pursuant to Article 157.2 of the Constitution the Supreme Council of Judicature has exclusive authority over the appointment, promotion, transfer, termination of appointment, dismissal and disciplinary matters of judicial officers of the inferior courts. It has the power to terminate the appointment of any judge, on account of mental or physical incapacity (Article 153.7(3)) or to dismiss a judge on the ground of misconduct (Article 153.7 (4)). 18. On 14 July 2000 the Supreme Court issued Rules on the basis of Article 163.2 (f) of the Constitution and section 17 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law of 1964 (Law 33/64, as amended), setting out the practice and procedure to be followed by the Supreme Council of Judicature in the exercise of its competence with regard to disciplinary matters relating to judicial officers. The relevant rules stipulate in detail the disciplinary procedure to be followed in the event a complaint is made that a judge may have become incapable, have displayed inappropriate behaviour (misconduct) or committed a disciplinary offence (Rule 3). If it is considered that an investigation is justified, an investigating judge is appointed by the Supreme Court to carry this out (Rules 4 -7). After the completion of the investigation, the Supreme Court decides, on the basis of the report submitted by the investigating judge and the statements which were taken during the investigation, whether the referral of the judge under investigation to the Supreme Council of Judicature is justified (Rules 8 and 9). If a decision is taken to proceed against the judge for misconduct or the commission of a disciplinary offence, the Supreme Court files a charge or charges against the judge in question who is called to appear before the Supreme Council of Judicature. Disciplinary proceedings are then carried out before that body (Rules 10-26). If the Supreme Council of Judicature decides that the charge or charges against the judge in question have not been proved, it shall acquit and exonerate him (Rule 23). Otherwise, a judge who is found to be guilty of misconduct shall be heard before the Supreme Council of Judicature proceeds further (Rule 26). 19. The penalty for misconduct under the Rules is dismissal (Article 153.7(4) of the Constitution and Rule 27) and for committing a disciplinary offence, a reprimand or a reprimand published in the Official Gazette of the Republic (Rule 28). 20. Section 17 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law of 1964 (Law 33/64, as amended) provides that the Supreme Court can make Rules to be published in the official Gazette of the Republic for the better carrying out of this Law into effect. Article 163.2 (f) of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court may make Rules of Court for prescribing the practice and procedure to be followed by the Supreme Council of Judicature in the exercise of its competence with regard to disciplinary matters relating to judicial officers.