Professor Kevin Aquilina, Head of Department of Media, Communications and Technology Law, Faculty of Laws, has published his latest paper entitled ‘The Independence of the Judiciary in Strasbourg Judicial Disciplinary Case Law: Judges as Applicants and National Judicial Councils as Factotums of Respondent States’ in a book entitled "Judicial Power in a Globalized World: Liber Amicorum Vincent De Gaetano", edited by two sitting judges of the European Court of Human Rights. 

The paper discusses 20 European Court of Human Rights cases involving national judges as applicants and State authorities, primarily, National Judicial Councils, participating in the disciplinary proceedings instituted against applicant judges.

The contribution lists the violated provisions of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms resorted to by applicant judges finding that Article 6 of the European Convention on the right to a fair and public trial, to be the most successfully invoked provision before the Court and the most violated by Council of Europe Member States. 

The Strasbourg Court also found a violation of Articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression), and 13 (the right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. 

Council of Europe Member States responsible for these violations are identified and a typology of disciplinary sanctions imposed is constructed by the author. The National Judicial Councils and other national judicial disciplinary authorities are mentioned explicitly together with their respective level of participation in national judicial disciplinary proceedings. 

Prof. Aquilina’s contribution delves into the reparations requested by applicant judges into pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, costs and expenses, and general and individual measures. In only one case did the Strasbourg Court advocate the reinstatement of a dismissed applicant judge. The relevance of these cases to the evolution of human rights law is discussed, whilst identifying gaps in the literature that need addressing through further study. The author makes a number of recommendations to bring national legislation of Council of Europe Member States in line with the Convention.

This paper is a follow up to a previous paper authored by Professor Aquilina, ‘The Strasbourg Court’s Case Law and Its Impact on Parliamentary Removal of a Judge in Malta: Turning Over a New Leaf?’