Case: Joined cases 55391/13, 57728/13 y 74041/13

Descriptors: Impartial and Independent Court

The dispute arises as a result of a telephone conversation between the appellant and an investigating judge. Through conversation, the first intended that the second would strive to prepare their personal assessment, since they needed this to compete for a vacant position. The investigating judge denounced the appellant before the Conselho Superior da Magistratura (CSM), a body that instructed disciplinary proceedings against her for failing to comply with her duty of decorum, basing the sanction on the sole testimony of the investigating judge, who also accused the Plaintiff of having insulted and offended him with personal attacks.

The decision was subject to appeal before the Secção do Contenciosa Administrativo do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, which dismissed the claims of the appellant, denying the existence of error and ratifying, on the contrary, the breach of its duty of probity, as well as the proportionality of the sanction.

Subsequently, the CSM proceeded to open a new disciplinary file against the appellant due to false testimony. Specifically, the aforementioned body considers that the appellant has breached the loyalty and honesty duty that should govern the judges' actions and, consequently, imposes a cessation of her activity for 100 days. Again, the appellant files a judicial appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice, and again the court dismisses her claims.

Finally, the appellant was disciplined for the fact that she asked the investigating judge not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the witness proposed by herself. An action that was considered as a breach of the duty of decorum and loyalty, a measure that was once again ratified by the Supreme Court, which rejected the appellant's allegations. The fact of accumulating three disciplinary sanctions led the CSM to sanction the appellant cumulatively.

The appellant alleged before the European Court of Human Rights the repeated violation of Article 6.1 of the Convention, in the area of ​​her right to an independent and impartial Court. The Grand Chamber considers that the composition of the CSM, abstractly and specifically, would have broken both principles. Regarding the action of the Supreme Court, it is considered excessively restrictive and reductionist in its function of controlling disciplinary acts. And, in general, it reproaches the Portuguese authorities for their inability to guarantee the appellant a public hearing.

Read the decision