Balancing judicial apoliticism and the right to freedom of speech – a critical analysis of ECHR Judgement no. 16915/21

• Authors: Marynowska Magdalena
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In recent years, the issue of judges' freedom of expression in the context of their independence and role in a democratic state has attracted increasing interest from scholars and legal practitioners. Referring to the ongoing discussion in the literature, this article analyzes the boundaries of this freedom, drawing on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, with particular emphasis on the case of Danileţ v. Romania. The aim of this article is to examine the boundaries of judges' freedom of expression within the framework of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. The study combines literature review, analysis of legal frameworks as well as critical doctrinal analysis to comprehensively analyse the ECHR's position in relation to legal norms and relevant literature. A critical assessment of the impact of these rulings on the redefinition of the relationship between judicial independence and judges' right to participate in public debate is conducted.

Keywords

EN

Judicial freedom of expression; European Court of Human Rights; proportionality principle; judicial independence

• Publisher: Wydział Nauk Politycznych i Studiów Międzynarodowych, Uniwersytet Warszawski
• Journal: Przegląd Europejski
• Year: 2025
• Issue: 1(75)
• Pages: 133 - 144

Dates

published

2025

Contributors

author

Marynowska Magdalena

• University of Warsaw

References

• BYCHAWSKA-SINIARSKA Dominika (2017), Protecting the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights: A handbook for legal practitioners, Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/handbook-freedom-of-expression-eng/1680732814 (30.12.2017).
• CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2007), proclaimed at Strasbourg on 12 December 2007 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, OJ C 303, 14.12.2007.
• EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1976), Case of Handyside v. United Kingdom, Application No. 5493/72, https://sip.lex.pl/#/jurisprudence/520174494 (16.09.2024).
• EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (2016), Case of Baka v. Hungary, Application no. 20261/12, Judgment of 23 June 2016, Strasbourg, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-163113%22%5D%7D (23.06.2016).
• EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (2022), Case of Żurek v. Poland, Application no. 39650/18, Judgment of 16 June 2022, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-217705%22%5D%7D (10.10.2022).
• EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (2024a), Sanction imposed on judge for Facebook posts concerning matters of public interest infringed his freedom of expression, Press Release, Registrar of the Court, ECHR 042 (2024), 20.02.2024.
• EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (2024b), Case of Danileţ v. Romania, Application no. 16915/21, Judgment of 20 February 2024, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-231394 (24.06.2024).
• EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (1950), signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11, 14 and 15, supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 16, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG (5.09.2024).
• FAJDIGA Mahor, ZAGORC Saša (2023), Freedom or Feardom of Expression of Judges? Exploring the "Chilling Effect" on Judicial Speech', „European Constitutional Law Review”, vol. 19, issue 2. DOI: 10.1017/S1574019623000093
• GIOROCEANU Alina (2024), A practical guidance to the discourse analysis of courts: case of Danileț v. Romania (judgment of February 20, 2024, application no. 16915/21), „Social Sciences and Education Research Review”, vol.11, issue 1. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15258215
• JABŁOŃSKI Paweł, KACZMAREK Przemysław, WOJTANOWSKI Mateusz (2023), Wolność ekspresji sędziego: Próba konceptualizacji, „Państwo i Prawo”, no. 1.
• JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021, European Commission v Republic of Poland, Case C-791/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:596
• LASKOWSKI Michał (2023), Granice wolności wypowiedzi sędziego w warunkach kryzysu praworządności, „Przegląd Sądowy”, no. 3.
• MACHNIKOWSKA Anna (2018), Zasady powoływania sędziów w praktyce, in: Anna Machniowska, O niezawisłości sędziów i niezależności sądów w trudnych czasach: Wymiar sprawiedliwości w pułapce sprawności, Wolters Kluwer Polska, Warszawa.
• MICHALSKA Magdalena (2019), Zasada proporcjonalności jako metoda rozstrzygania konfliktów praw podstawowych – krytyka i obrona, „Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem”, vol. 11, no. 2. DOI: 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.309
• MOON Richard (2000), The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression, University of Toronto Press.
• NOWICKI Marek Antoni (2017), Baka przeciwko Węgrom - wyrok ETPC z dnia 23 czerwca 2016 r., Wielka Izba, skarga nr 20261/12, in: M.A. Nowicki, Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka: Wybór orzeczeń 2016, LEX/el. 2017.
• PECH Laurent (2021), The concept of chilling effect: Its untapped potential to better protect democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights within the EU, Open Society Foundations, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/c8c58ad3-fd6e-4b2d-99fa-d8864355b638/the-concept-of-chilling-effect-20210322.pdf (31.03.2021).
• SESSA Duro (2022), Freedom of Expression of Judges, Council of Europe, Horizontal Facility for the Western Balkans and Turkey 2019–2022, https://rm.coe.int/hf6-guidelines-foe-judges-eng/1680a738d3 (30.06.2022).
• TEU, Treaty on European Union (consolidated version), OJ C 202, 07.06.2016.
• THE CONSTITUTION OF ROMANIA (1991), adopted by the Constituant Assembly on 21 November 1991 and amended in 2003, „Official Gazette of Romania”, Part I, no. 767, 31.10.2003, https://www.presidency.ro/en/the-constitution-of-romania (3.02.2025).
• THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND (1997), of 2nd April 1997, „Dziennik Ustaw” no. 78, item 483, 16.07.1997, https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm (3.02.2025).
• THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF HUNGARY (2011), adopted by parliament on 18 April 2011, “Hungarian Official Gazette”, 25.04.2011, consolidated version as in force on 15 April 2025, Ministry of Justice, https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/en/2011-4301-02-00 (4.05.2025).
• UNITED NATIONS (1966), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16 December 1966 by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI), https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights (3.02.2025).
• UNITED NATIONS (1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights (3.02.2025).
• WARECKA Katarzyna (2024), Sędzia może publikować posty na Facebooku: Omówienie wyroku ETPC z dnia 20 lutego 2024 r., 16915/21 (Danileţ), LEX/el., https://sip.lex.pl/#/publication/403131328/warecka-katarzyna-sedzia-moze-publikowac-posty-na-facebooku-omowienie-wyroku-etpc-z-dnia-20...?keyword=S%C4%99dzia%20mo%C5%BCe%20publikowa%C4%87%20posty%20na%20Facebooku:%20Om%C3%B3wienie%20wyroku%20ETPC%20z%20dnia%2020%20lutego%202024%20r.,%2016915%2F21%20(Danile%C5%A3)&cm=SFIRST (7.12.2024).
• WENDEL W. Bradley (2008), Impartiality in Judicial Ethics: A Jurisprudential Analysis, „Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy”, vol. 22, issue 2.