International legal framework for the regulation of judicial immunity
Abstract
The article analyses the phenomenon of judicial indemnity through the prism of international legal regulation developed in Western Europe in recent decades. Based on the analysis of Ukrainian and European law, it has been concluded that the doctrine of limited judicial indemnity is currently dominant, which balances public interests and serves the freedom of expression and strengthening of the principles of independence in the structure of the legal status of a judge. It is demonstrated that the international legal regulation of judicial indemnity contributes to the institutional strengthening of the judiciary, enhancement of its authority in society, and awareness of the high mission of judges in establishing the rule of law, preventing and counteracting any manifestations of aggression against the judiciary which not only threaten its independence but also often deprive judges of the opportunity to legally express their opinions in public. Judicial indemnity is considered in the context of the concept of subjective human rights as a derivative of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. This indemnity belongs to professional judges in accordance with the concept of good faith. It is established that a judge's freedom of expression is possible both in his/her judicial and extrajudicial activities, which should be clearly reflected in the amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”. The state guarantees judges protection from prosecution for their statements both in and out of court. In the Ukrainian context, the content and system of such guarantees require both regulatory and institutional strengthening. The scope of judicial indemnity protection varies depending on the legislation, rules of judicial ethics, specifics of the judicial system, authority of the judiciary, case law and legal traditions. Moreover, there are some peculiarities of the ‘cooling effect’ concept in the field of judicial indemnity. Finally, the author concludes that the key elements of the European Court of Human Rights case law relating to the essence of judicial indemnity and its limits should be adapted and integrated into the Ukrainian judicial system, given their importance for the development of the relevant doctrine.
Downloads
References
Barnych, K. I., Bysaha, Yu. M., Berch, V. V., Deshko, L. M., & Fridmanskyi, R. M. (2021). Realization of the constitutional right to freedom of thought and speech, to free expression of one’s views and beliefs. RIK-U.
Dijkstra, S. (2017). The Freedom of the Judge to Express His Personal Opinions and Convictions under the ECHR. Utrecht Law Review, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.371.
Dragnevich, O. V. (2021). The modern concept of judicial immunity in Ukraine. Legal Novels, 13, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.32847/ln.2021.13.24.
Gorodovenko, V. (2023). Judge’s right to freely express own views in the context of establishing the authority of the judicial power in society. Slovo of the National School of Judges of Ukraine, 1(42), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.37566/2707-6849-2023-1(42)-1.
Hrymalyuk, P. O. (2014). The General Analysis of Soft Law Acts in European Union Law. Subcarpathian Law Herald, 3(6), 340–349.
Ivantsova, A. V. (2018, October 18–19). Definition of the concept of judicial indemnity: general characteristics and international legal analysis [Conference presentation abstract]. II International Sciences and Practical Conference “Modern challenges and actual problems of judicial reform in Ukraine”, Chernivtsi, Ukraine.
Khavroniuk, M. I. (2019). Criminal Liability for Making an Unlawful Court Decision by Judiciary: International Standards, Legislation of Ukraine and Other European States. NaUKMA Research Papers. Law, 4, 83–95. https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-2607.2019.4.83-95.
Khotynska-Nor, O. (2020). Ethics of a judge and his freedom of expression in the context of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law, 12, 284–289. https://doi.org/10.32849/2663-5313/2020.12.49.
Pech, L. (2021). The Concept of Chilling Effect: Its Untapped Potential to Better Protect Democracy, the Rule of Law, and Fundamental Rights in the EU. Open Society European Policy Institute. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/the-concept-of-chilling-effect.
Rosales, C. M., & Vargas, O. R. (2022). Freedom of Expression of Judges’ Communication. Regional Law Review, 9, 48–70. https://doi.org/10.56461/iup_rlrc.2022.3.ch3.
Seibert-Fohr, A. (2021). The Independence of Judges and their Freedom of Expression: An Ambivalent Relationship. In M. Elósegui, A. Miron, & Iu. Motoc, The Rule of Law in Europe (pp. 89–110). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3375038.
Senden, L. (2004). Soft Law in European Community Law. Hart publishing.
Spodaryk, M. B. (2020). Separate opinion of a judge of a court of general and constitutional jurisdiction: comparative and legal analysis. Juridical Scientific and Electronic Journal, 1, 54–57. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2020-1/12.
Synytsyn, P. M. (2019). Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as the source of the constitutional law of Ukraine. Actual Problems of Native Jurisprudence, 5, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.15421/391949.
Titko, E. V. (2013). Legitimate restriction of freedom of expression: experience of the European Court of Human Rights [Candidate dissertation, V. M. Koretskyi Institute of State and Law NAS of Ukraine].
Tsomidis, Т. (2022). Freedom of expression in turbulent times – comparative approaches to dangerous speech: the ECtHR and the US Supreme Court. The International Journal of Human Rights, 26(3), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1928084.
Yarmol, L. V. (2019). Freedom of expression and problems of legal support for its implementation in Ukraine (general theoretical study) [Lviv Polytechnic National University].
Copyright (c) 2024 S. O. Demchenko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
