Removal of a judge from the office of President of the Court of Appeal for failure to perform administrative duties properly.
Art. 8 ECHR
Art. 6 ECHR
1. Art. 8 ECHR cannot be invoked to complain of a loss of reputation or other repercussions which manifest themselves as the foreseeable consequences of one's actions. Employment disputes are not per se excluded from the scope of 'private life' as understood by Article 8 ECHR. Indeed, there are typical aspects of private life which may be affected in the event of loss of employment. It is therefore incumbent on the appellant to show convincingly that the contested act of dismissal did in fact significantly affect his life.
2. In the present case, the decision to remove the applicant from his post as President of the Court of Appeal had been taken only with regard to his managerial skills. As regards social reputation in general, the authorities' criticism had not affected any aspect of the applicant's moral conduct or personality or character. In fact, the removal from office was based only on a finding of breach of official duties in the administration of justice, there had been no allegation of intentional misconduct or misconduct. The applicant's moral values had not been called into question and no reproach of that nature could be identified in the contested decisions. The dismissal had had limited negative effects on the applicant's private life and had not exceeded the threshold of seriousness that would lead the Court to find the State in breach of Article 8 ECHR.
(The applicant had been dismissed from his post as President of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Kiev for failure to perform his administrative duties properly. Although he remained a judge of the same court).
This site uses technical, analytics and third-party cookies. If you want to learn more or opt out of all or some cookies, press the "Manage cookies" button or consult the