CASE OF JAKŠOVSKI AND TRIFUNOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turković
6. The applicants were born in 1959 and 1946, and live in Ohrid and Tetovo, respectively. 7. Following allegations raised by a lawyer (which were subsequently withdrawn), V.V., a member of the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”), a body vested with jurisdiction to decide, inter alia, on the dismissal of judges (see Amendment XXIX to the Constitution, paragraph 20 below), made enquiries through the President of the court in which the first applicant worked as a judge. A preliminary inquiry was carried out, and on 19 April 2008 V.V. requested, under sections 55 and 58 of the State Judicial Act of 2006 (“the 2006 Act”, see paragraph 21 below) and section 5 of the Rules governing professional misconduct proceedings in respect of a judge (“the Rules”, see paragraph 25 below), that the SJC initiate professional misconduct proceedings in respect of the first applicant. In the request V.V. claimed that the first applicant had not been diligent in conducting proceedings in a civil case. The first applicant responded in writing. 8. On 4 June 2008 the SJC set up, under section 58 of the 2006 Act (see paragraph 21 below), a Commission for determination of professional misconduct by a judge (Комисија за утврдување нестручно и несовесно вршење на судиската функција, hereinafter “the Commission”). 9. On the basis of V.V.’s request and the Commission’s report as to whether the request was justified, on 3 October 2008 the plenary of the SJC initiated proceedings for professional misconduct in respect of the first applicant. 10. On 12 November 2008 the Commission held a hearing at which it heard evidence from V.V. and the first applicant. It also took other evidence into account. On 1 December 2008 the Commission drew up, under section 55(6) of the 2006 Act, a report on the question whether the request for the first applicant’s dismissal had been justified. It submitted the report to the plenary of the SJC for consideration. 11. On 17 December 2008 the plenary of the SJC, the composition of which included V.V., dismissed the first applicant for professional misconduct. 12. The first applicant challenged that decision at second instance, namely before an Appeal Panel formed within the Supreme Court (“the Appeal Panel”). Such panels were set up on an ad hoc basis in each separate case. As specified under section 60 of the 2006 Act, they were composed of nine judges, of whom three were to be Supreme Court judges, four Appeal Court judges and two judges of the court of the applicant. On 24 September 2009 the Appeal Panel dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the SJC’s decision. 13. On 21 July 2008 R.P., a member of the SJC, applied to the SJC for professional misconduct proceedings to be instituted in respect of the second applicant. It had been alleged that, as an on-duty investigating judge, the second applicant had not been diligent in the investigation of an incident that had occurred in the Tetovo detention centre. Under section 8 of the Rules (see paragraph 25 below), the request was submitted to the second applicant for comments. He responded in writing. 14. On an unspecified date, the SJC set up, under section 58 of the 2006 Act, a five-member Commission in the second applicant’s case. On 12 December 2008 the Commission submitted a report to the SJC in which it sought that it initiate professional misconduct proceedings against the second applicant. 15. With two separate decisions delivered on 29 December 2008, the plenary of the SJC, including R.P., initiated professional misconduct proceedings in respect of the second applicant and ordered his temporary suspension. The decisions were not amenable to appeal. 16. On 20 January 2009 the Commission held a hearing at which R.P. and the second applicant presented their arguments and concluding remarks (завршни зборови). Evidence against the second 17. On 12 February 2009 the plenary of the SJC, the composition of which included R.P., dismissed the second applicant for professional misconduct. The second applicant appealed against his dismissal to the Appeal Panel that had been formed in his case within the Supreme Court, arguing, inter alia, that he had not been given the opportunity to comment on the evidence against him when the request for his dismissal had been served on him. He also asked the Appeal Panel to inform him of the date of its session. At a hearing held in private on 5 May 2009, the Appeal Panel dismissed the second applicant’s appeal. 18. On 25 June 2009 the second applicant challenged his dismissal before the Administrative Court by means of an administrative-dispute action (тужба за управен спор). He complained, inter alia, about the alleged refusal of his request for exclusion of Judges N.I. and J.V. who had been parties to the decision of the Appeal Panel in his case. He had requested their withdrawal because Judge N.I. had applied at the relevant time to the SJC for the post of president of a first-instance court, and Judge J.V. allegedly had a close relationship with the public prosecutor involved in the case in respect of which he had been dismissed. On 6 October 2010 the Administrative Court rejected the second applicant’s action as inadmissible. That decision was upheld by the Higher Administrative Court. 19. The second applicant produced copies of articles published in local newspapers on 26 January and 13 February 2009 reporting on his case. The article published on 26 January 2009 cited the then President of the SJC as saying that the Commission was still dealing with the case and that no report had yet been submitted to the SJC for consideration. On 13 February 2009 the newspaper announced that the second applicant had been removed from office.