Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Independence of the Judiciary in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: The Case of Baka v. Hungary

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Rule of Law in Europe

Abstract

The present contribution focuses on the independence of judges (in relation to the other two powers) and the freedom of expression of judges, analysing the leading case of Baka v. Hungary of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This judgment contains also a summary of the most important criteria relating to the independence of judges as they appear in the jurisprudence of this Court. More recently, these principles were applied in two other Grand Chamber cases, Denisov v. Ukraine and Ramos Nunes Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal. The cases of Baka and Denisov are related to the applicants’ removal from administrative positions, as presidents of the Supreme Court, without termination of their judicial tenure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ECtHR [the Registry] (2018).

  2. 2.

    Aquilina (2019).

  3. 3.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 23 June 2016, No. 20261/12. See Kosař and Šipulová (2018), pp. 83–110.

  4. 4.

    ECtHR [GC], Denisov v. Ukraine, 25 September 2018, No. 76639/11.

  5. 5.

    ECtHR [GC], Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal, 6 Nov. 2018, Nos. 55391/13 and 2 others.

  6. 6.

    For a summary of the facts and a critical comment on the changes in the Constitutional law in Hungary see Cannoot (2016).

  7. 7.

    I had the opportunity to attend the hearing, owing to the fact that at the time I was an expert in the Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe and happened to be in Strasbourg. The hearing in the presence of Judge Baka had a great impact on me, also because Judge Baka had been a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for many years, from 1991 to 2008. In order to preserve independence, not one of the judges sitting in the Grand Chamber composition had previously been a colleague of his at the Court.

  8. 8.

    ECtHR [the Registry] (2018), p. 6.

  9. 9.

    To quote Halmai (2017), p. 488: “And the aim of the Hungarian government with the reduction of the retirement age of the judges was exactly to get rid of the most of the court presidents, and replace them with new ones, loyal to the government.” See also Halmai (2012).

  10. 10.

    See ECtHR [GC], Stafford v. the United Kingdom, no. 46295/99, para. 78, ECtHR 2002-IV; and ECtHR [The registry], p. 3.

  11. 11.

    See A. Seibert-Fohr in the present book. Also Dijkstra (2017), pp. 11–14.

  12. 12.

    Cano Palomares (2018), p. 128.

  13. 13.

    See Baka v. Hungary [GC], para. 140.

  14. 14.

    See an in-depth analysis of these cases and the difficulties in making the distinction in Dijkstra (2017), pp. 12–13.

  15. 15.

    ECtHR [GC], Wille v. Liechtenstein, 28 Oct. 1999, No. 28396/95, paras. 41–42.

  16. 16.

    See Baka v. Hungary [GC], para. 141 and ECtHR [The Registry] (2018), p. 7.

  17. 17.

    Unlike the case of Kayasu v. Turkey, 13 Nov. 2008, Nos. 64119/00 and 76292/01, paras. 77–79 (about the disciplinary dismissal of a prosecutor).

  18. 18.

    Harabin v. Slovakia, Decision, 29 June 2004, No. 62584/00 (dismissed as manifestly ill-founded).

  19. 19.

    See Kudeshkina c. Russia, 26 February 2009, No. 29492/05, para.79.

  20. 20.

    Cited in Baka v. Hungary [GC], para. 142.

  21. 21.

    Halmai (2017), p. 488.

  22. 22.

    Baka v. Hungary, para. 144.

  23. 23.

    Scheppele (2015), pp. 111–124.

  24. 24.

    Gyulavári and Hős (2013), p. 289. Summary: The retirement age of Hungarian judges was lowered by a new law from 70 to 62 years at the beginning of 2012. This generated heated legal and political debates both at national and European level. Firstly, in mid-2012 the Hungarian Constitutional Court stated its unconstitutionality based on the principle of judicial independence (33/2012. (VII. 17.) AB decision). Secondly, in November 2012 the Court of Justice (Court of Justice or CJEU) established the violation of EU age discrimination provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC (Directive), on the grounds that the introduction of the automatic retirement scheme was in breach with the principle of proportionality (C-286/12 European Commission v Hungary, judgment of 6 December 2012). Also Halmai (2017), pp. 471–488.

  25. 25.

    See Baka v. Hungary [GC], para. 145.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., para. 147. See Vincze (2015), p. 3.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., para. 148.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., para. 149. See by contrast Harabin v. Slovakia, 20 November 2012, No. 58688/11, paras. 150–153.

  29. 29.

    Cano Palomares (2018), pp. 124–125.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., p. 124.

  31. 31.

    ECtHR, Vogt v. Germany [GC], 26 Sept. 1995, No. 17851/91.

  32. 32.

    ECtHR, Albayrak v. Turkey, 31 Jan. 2008, No. 38406/97 and Pitkevich v. Russia, 8 Feb. 2001, No. 47936/99.

  33. 33.

    A. Seibert-Fohr, in this book; and Seibert-Fohr (2012, 2019).

  34. 34.

    ECtHR, Albayrak v. Turkey, 31 January 2008, No. 38406/97.

  35. 35.

    ECtHR, Olujic v. Croatia, 5 Feb. 2009, No 223305/05. See Mahoney (2012). Also Dijkstra (2017), pp. 11–14.

  36. 36.

    ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, 26 Feb. 2009, No. 29492/05, para. 94.

  37. 37.

    ECtHR, Di Giovanni v. Italy, 9 July 2013, No. 51160/06, para. 81; Kudeshkina v. Russia, 26 Feb. 2009, No. 29492/05, para. 86.

  38. 38.

    See ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, paras. 117–118.

  39. 39.

    Ibid. This lack of analysis of the Court about the rule of law has received many critics by the part of several academics. Among them, Kosař and Šipulová (2018), pp. 83–110. Chronowski and Varju (2016), pp. 271–289.

  40. 40.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, para. 156.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., para. 157. According to Halmai (2017), p. 488: “While the former aimed at getting rid of as many aged court leaders, who were presumably not loyal to the government, as possible, the aim of the early termination of the Supreme Court President’s term was to replace the head of the entire judiciary, who was critical towards the new judicial system, which curtailed the independence of the judiciary. In this respect, the Baka case was also an issue of judicial independence, threatened by legislative means, even if this was the new Fundamental Law itself.”

  42. 42.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, para. 168.

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para. 171. Solomon (2012), pp. 909–935.

  45. 45.

    Baka v. Hungary [GC], para. 172. See Sonnevend et al. (2015), pp. 33–110.

  46. 46.

    Baka v. Hungary [GC], para. 173.

  47. 47.

    ECtHR, Fruni v. Slovakia, 21 June 2011, No. 8014/07, para. 145.

  48. 48.

    ECtHR, Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland, 30 Nov. 2010, No. 23614/08.

  49. 49.

    ECtHR [GC], Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, 19 April 2007, No. 63235/00.

  50. 50.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, paras. 107–118.

  51. 51.

    ECtHR, G v. Finland, 27 Jan. 2009, No. 33173/05.

  52. 52.

    ECtHR, Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, 9 Jan. 2013, No. 21722/11.

  53. 53.

    ECtHR, Di Giovanni v. Italy, 9 July 2013, No. 51160/06.

  54. 54.

    ECtHR, Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, 15 Sept. 2015, No. 43800/12.

  55. 55.

    ECtHR, Olujic v. Croatia, 5 Feb. 2009, No. 22330/05.

  56. 56.

    ECtHR, Harabin v. Slovakia, 20 Nov. 2012, No.58688/11.

  57. 57.

    See Nazsiz v. Turkey, Decision, 26 May 2009, No 22412/05, on the disciplinary dismissal of a prosecutor, cited in Baka v. Hungary, para. 105.

  58. 58.

    Cano Palomares (2018), p. 121.

  59. 59.

    Some recent comments by Kosař (2018), p. 80. Also Settem (2016), p. 366.

  60. 60.

    ECtHR, Paluda v. Slovakia, 23 May 2017, No. 33392/12.

  61. 61.

    Baka v. Hungary, para. 116.

  62. 62.

    Cano Palomares (2018), p. 122. Baka v. Hungary, para. 117.

  63. 63.

    Baka v. Hungary, Dissenting opinion of Judge Wojtyczek.

  64. 64.

    Baka v. Hungary, Concurring opinions of Judges Pinto de Alburquerque and Dedov.

  65. 65.

    Some academics such as Cannoot, o.c., affirm that “The Court clearly attributes direct supraconstitutional effect to the Convention, and more specifically articles 6 para.1 and 10. Indeed, it emphasizes that the applicable provision of the Hungarian Fundamental law and the accessory Transitional Provisions are incompatible with the rule of law, which is inherent to the Convention (para.117)”. However, paragraph 117 does not use these words.

  66. 66.

    Baka v. Hungary, Chamber Judgment, 27 May 2014, para. 77.

  67. 67.

    Baka v. Hungary [GC], paras. 120–121.

  68. 68.

    Committee of Ministers, 1280 Meeting, 7–9 March 2017, Decision following Communication from Hungary concerning the case of Baka against Hungary, doc. CM/Del/Dec(2017)1280/H46-15.

  69. 69.

    Ibid.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Ahrens et al. (2019), p. 152.

  72. 72.

    ECtHR, Erményi v. Hungary, n° 22254/14, 22 February 2017.

  73. 73.

    Ahrens et al. (2019), p. 153. See also ibid., p. 153, note 38. “On 4 December 2014 the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2014) in the Volkov case, in which it expressed ‘grave concern that despite the efforts deployed by the Ukranian authorities to ensure, by way of a parliamentary resolution, the applicant’s reinstatement as required by the Convention, such a resolution has still not been adopted’. In Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the ECtHR-Annual Report 2017 it is stated that Mr. Volkov was ‘reintegrated’ into the Supreme Court (p. 201). It would seem, however, that the situation still has not been fully solved, and the Committee of Ministers did not close its examination of this case yet.”

  74. 74.

    Committee of Ministers, 1280 Meeting, 7–9 March 2017, Decision following Communication from Hungary concerning the case of Baka against Hungary, doc. CM/Del/Dec(2017)1280/H46-15.

  75. 75.

    Halmai (2012), p. 486.

  76. 76.

    Kosař and Šipulová (2018), pp. 83–110.

  77. 77.

    ECtHR [GC], Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e sà v. Portugal, 6 Nov. 2018, Nos. 55391/13 and 2 others.

  78. 78.

    Aquilina (2019), p. 7.

  79. 79.

    See Kosař (2012), p. 110.

References

  • Ahrens H, Fischer H, Gómez V, Nowak M (eds) (2019) Equal access to justice for all and Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Agenda: challenges for Latin America and Europa. Lit Verlag, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquilina K (2019) The independence of the judiciary in Strasbourg Judicial Disciplinary Case Law: judges as applicants and national judicial councils as factotums of respondent states. In: de Albuquerque PP, Wojtyczek K (eds) Judicial power in a globalized world. Liber Amicorum Vincent De Gaetano. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannoot P (2016) Baka v. Hungary: judicial independence at risk in Hungary’s new constitutional reality. Strasbourg Observers. Available at: strasbourgobserves.com/2016/07/12/baka-hungary-judicial-independence-at-risk-in-hungary-new-constitutional-reality. Accessed 18 Apr 2020

  • Cano Palomares G (2018) El caso Baka c. Hungría ante el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos o la Protección de la Independencia Judicial a través del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. In: Raimondi G et al (eds) Human rights in a global world. Essays in honour of Judge Luis López Guerra. Wolf Legal Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 119–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Chronowski N, Varju M (2016) Two eras of Hungarian constitutionalism: from the rule of law to rule by law. Hague J Rule Law 8(2):271–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra S (2017) The freedom of the judge to express his personal opinions and convictions under the ECtHR. Utrecht Law Rev 13(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR [The Registry] (2018) Background Paper. The Authority of the Judiciary. Available at: https://www.ECtHR.coe.int/Documents/Seminar_background_paper_2018_ENG.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020

  • Gyulavári T, Hős N (2013) Retirement of Hungarian judges, age discrimination and judicial independence: a tale of two courts. Ind Law J 42:289–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halmai G (2012) From the “rule of law revolution” to the constitutional counter-revolution in Hungary. Eur Yearb Hum Rights:367–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Halmai G (2017) The early retirement age of the Hungarian judges. In: Nicola F, Davies B (eds) EU law stories. Contextual and critical histories of European jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 471–488

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kosař D (2012) Policing separation of powers: a new role for the European Court of Human Rights? Eur Const Law Rev 8(1):33–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosař D (2018) The Strasbourg Court and domestic judicial politics. In: Wind M (ed) International courts and domestic politics. University of Copenhagen and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 71–92

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kosař D, Šipulová K (2018) The Strasbourg Court meets abusive constitutionalism: Baka v. Hungary and the rule of law. Hague J Rule Law 10(1):83–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney P (2012) Free speech of civil servants and other public employees. In: Casadevall J et al (eds) Freedom of expression: essays in honour of Nicholas Bratza. Wolf Legal Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 257–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheppele KL (2015) Understanding Hungary’s constitutional revolution. In: Von Bogdandy A, Sonnevend P (eds) Constitutional crisis in the European constitutional area. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 111–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert-Fohr A (2012) Introduction. The challenge of transition. In: Seibert-Fohr A (ed) Judicial independence in transition. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert-Fohr A (2019) The independence of judges and their freedom of expression: an ambivalent relationship. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Settem OJ (2016) Application of the “fair hearing” norm in ECtHR Article 6(1) to civil proceedings. With special emphasis on he balance between procedural safeguards and efficiency. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon PH (2012) The accountability of judges in post communist states: from bureaucratic to professional accountability. In: Seibert-Fohr A (ed) Judicial independence in transition. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 909–935

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnevend P, Jakab A, Csink L (2015) The constitution as an instrument of everyday party politics: the basic law of Hungary. In: Von Bogdandy A, Sonnevend P (eds) Constitutional crisis in the European constitutional area. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 33–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincze A (2015) Dismissal of the president of the Hungarian Supreme Court: ECtHR Judgment Baka v. Hungary. Eur Public Law 21:445–456

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France

    María Elósegui

Authors
  1. María Elósegui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Elósegui .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Judge at European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France

    María Elósegui

  2. Professor at University of Angers, Angers, France

    Alina Miron

  3. Judge at European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France

    Iulia Motoc

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Elósegui, M. (2021). The Independence of the Judiciary in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: The Case of Baka v. Hungary. In: Elósegui, M., Miron, A., Motoc, I. (eds) The Rule of Law in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56001-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56001-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56000-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56001-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation