Published on 25 August 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 47376/21
Sofija LALICHIKJ
against North Macedonia
lodged on 15 September 2021
communicated on 4 August 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the dismissal from office of the applicant, a former judge at the Skopje Criminal Court, by a decision of the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”).
On 5 September 2019 the applicant fined A.A., a defence lawyer in one of the criminal proceedings in which she was presiding as a trial judge, for contempt of court. On 19 November 2019 a three-judge panel quashed the applicant’s decision, finding that A.A., whose power of authority had previously been revoked, could not be fined as he was no longer a participant in the proceedings.
On 30 September 2019 A.A. requested that professional misconduct proceedings be initiated against the applicant. On 20 December 2019 a three-member Commission of rapporteurs (“the Commission”) of the SJC declared his request inadmissible. It held that the request failed to elaborate on what specifically had been the applicant’s misconduct. The Commission referred to section 76 of the Courts Act containing a list of acts considered as professional misconduct.
On 11 March 2021 the SJC, acting on a second request filed by A.A. on 17 June 2020, dismissed the applicant from office. Referring to section 74(1) and (3) of the Courts Act, the SJC established that the applicant had been aware that A.A. was no longer a participant in the proceedings when she fined him, and she overstepped her lawful authority as a judge. Her actions gravely tarnished the reputation of the judiciary.
In her appeal, the applicant complained, inter alia, of the following:
(i) that the SJC merely applied the general conditions for dismissal under section 74 of the Act and failed to give any reasoning as to how section 76 applied to her case;
(ii) the proportionality of the sanction; and
(iii) undue influence due to statements given by the then Minister of Justice in a TV appearance of 12 March 2021 in which he discussed the dismissal of certain judges, including the applicant, and referred to those cases as “... people who were considered a problem for a long time, product of a captured state in the judiciary...” and “...symbol(s) of an era...”.
On 1 July 2021 the ad hoc Appeal Panel set up within the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held that the SJC had described the acts that constituted misconduct and their impact on the reputation of the judiciary. As to the proportionality of the sanction, it considered itself unable to lawfully exercise review in this respect (нема законска можност да интервенира во изречената санкција). It did not comment on the applicant’s allegations regarding the statements made by the Minister of Justice. The decision was served to the applicant on 22 July 2021.
On 25 March 2021 the Constitutional Court refused to initiate constitutional review proceedings regarding section 72(3) of the State Judicial Council Act, finding that the scope of review of the Appeal Panel may include issues related to the facts and the application of substantive law (publication in Official Gazette no.208/21 on 6 September 2021).
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about insufficient reasoning by the SJC and the Appeal Panel regarding her dismissal and the lack of fairness in the proceedings on account of the influence of the statements made by the Minister of Justice. She also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the Appeal Panel was not an effective remedy because it lacked full jurisdiction to review the SJC’s decision, in particular regarding the proportionality of the sanction.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
(a) In particular, did the proceedings for establishing professional misconduct before the State Judicial Council (SJC) and the Appeal Panel comply with the institutional requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that any of these bodies met the requirement of a “tribunal” (see, mutatis mutandis, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 131 et seq., 6 November 2018; Cotora v. Romania, no. 30745/18, §§ 34-44, 17 January 2023; and Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey, no. 76521/12, §§ 95-99, 9 March 2021)?
(b) Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the limited scope of review exercised by the Appeal Panel (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 77-80, 5 April 2018, and Mnatsakanyan v. Armenia, no. 2463/12, § 64-65, 6 December 2022)? For the same reasons, did the applicant have the possibility of an effective review of her dismissal by the Appeal Panel? Did the Appeal Panel have “full jurisdiction” to review the decision of the SJC (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 176 et seq., 6 November 2018)?
(c) Did the decision of the SJC and the Appeal Panel contain adequate reasons, in particular regarding the conditions for establishing professional misconduct and dismissal of judges as provided under sections 74 and 76 of the Courts Act, and considering that A.A.’s first request had been declared inadmissible due to the lack of substantiation on this particular ground (see, for general principles, Karajanov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2229/15, §§ 51-53, 6 April 2017)?
(d) Did the decision of the SJC contain adequate reasons regarding the proportionality of the sanction?
(e) Were the principles of independence and impartiality respected in the applicant’s dismissal proceedings? In particular, having regard to the public statements made by the Minister of Justice in his televised appearance, before the Appeal Panel decided on the applicant’s appeal, were the proceedings before the domestic courts compatible with the guarantees of an “independent and impartial tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29908/11, §§ 136-51, 21 January 2016)?