Judgment Tsatani v. Greece - Lack of guarantee of impartiality in disciplinary proceedings brought by the President of the Court of Cassation against a prosecutor

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 236 (2025)   14.10.2025   Lack of guarantee of impartiality in disciplinary proceedings brought by the   President of the Court of Cassation against a prosecutor   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Tsatani v. Greece (application no. 42514/16) the   European Court of Human Rights held, by 6 votes to 1, that there had been:   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned disciplinary proceedings brought against Ms Tsatani, a prosecutor at the Athens   Court of Appeal, by the President of the Court of Cassation, V.T., after the latter conducted a   preliminary disciplinary investigation against Ms Tsatani for closing investigations into a criminal   fraud case. Ms Tsatani requested V.T.’s recusal, alleging that she was not impartial. The recusal   request was dismissed, and the Court of Cassation disciplinary councils found Ms Tsatani guilty of   serious negligence and docked two months from her salary.   The Court found that Ms Tsatani’s concerns as to the impartiality of the proceedings before the   courts that had heard her case had not been unreasonable, subjective or unjustified. In particular,   the disciplinary council had failed to address the impact of an official press release issued by V.T.   referring to the preliminary investigation when it was still pending. The Court found that the press   release of itself had been incompatible with the notion of an “independent and impartial tribunal” in   view of its content and the context in which it was issued. Due to the fact that V.T. was President of   the Court of Cassation, had the highest authority within the civil and criminal courts, and was also   well known as a former interim prime minister, she should have made sure that she was  and was   seen to be  acting impartially, particularly as she had investigated and brought disciplinary   proceedings against a member of the judiciary. Considering the case’s singular context, the Court   found that the proceedings had failed to meet the Convention’s standard of impartiality.   Principal facts   The applicant, Georgia Tsatani, is a Greek national who was born in 1952 and lives in Athens. At the   time of the events, she was a prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal.   In March 2016, the then President of the Court of Cassation, V.T., opened a preliminary disciplinary   investigation against Ms Tsatani due to concern expressed by the Cypriot Minister of Justice and the   Advocate General about her decision to close criminal investigations into a criminal fraud case   involving Greek and Cypriot individuals. V.T. asked the applicant to present her defence in writing.   Ms Tsatani subsequently submitted a report to the Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, complaining   that the Greek deputy Minister of Justice had referred to the pending disciplinary proceedings   against her in a speech before Parliament, even though the proceedings were confidential.   She also submitted her defence to V.T., as well as a recusal request arguing that V.T. had previously   been involved in the case and, therefore, could not be impartial. Ms Tsatani alleged that V.T. had   provided the deputy Minister of Justice with confidential information about the pending disciplinary   proceedings and, in her previous capacity as interim prime minister, had developed special contacts   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   with that Minister, as well as with the Cypriot officials who had contacted her about the closing of   the investigation. Lastly, she alleged that V.T. had failed to remain impartial because she had   addressed questions to her and to the witnesses in a prejudicial way and had not provided her with   the complete file.   A week later, V.T. referred the preliminary investigation to a Vice-President of the Court of   Cassation, stating that Ms Tsatani’s recusal request constituted an abuse of process, aiming to delay   the proceedings, and that the reasons relied on had been unfounded. She also issued an official   press release to that effect, referring to the pending disciplinary proceedings, stating that she was   fighting “big, interconnected interests” and mentioning the applicant by name, while stating that the   recusal request that Ms Tsatani had lodged against her had been unfounded and an abuse of   process.   Noting that V.T. had dismissed the recusal request as an abuse of process, the Vice-President   declared it inadmissible for lack of standing. She concluded the preliminary investigation on 5 May   2016 and proposed, on the basis of the evidence collected by V.T. and the written defence   previously submitted by the applicant, that V.T. bring a disciplinary action against Ms Tsatani.   In June 2016, V.T. brought a disciplinary action against the applicant and referred the case to the   7-member disciplinary council of the Court of Cassation. In the action, she stated that the recusal   request was inadmissible since it had not been lodged with the Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation.   The council found that the applicant’s recusal request had been inadmissible, and dismissed her   objections that the disciplinary action was invalid. It found her guilty of serious negligence, which   had damaged the prestige of the judiciary. She had terminated criminal investigations which had   been under the exclusive competence of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor and had breached an   agreement between Greek and Cypriot authorities, concluded in the context of the European Union   Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (EUROJUST), according to which some aspects of the case   had to be investigated by the Cypriot authorities. As sentence, it docked 60 days’ salary.   The applicant’s appeal was heard by the 9-member disciplinary council of the Court of Cassation,   which dismissed it in March 2017. The council found that V.T. had not dismissed Ms Tsatani’s recusal   request but had merely referred the case to the Vice-President of the Court of Cassation. In any   event, Ms Tsatani’s recusal request had been unfounded. V.T. had the power under national law to   personally undertake preliminary disciplinary investigations and bring disciplinary proceedings if she   considered the case to be of great socioeconomic interest or of media importance. V.T.’s relations   with the Cypriot officials and the Deputy Minister of Justice had been strictly formal. Further,   Ms Tsatani’s allegation that V.T. had leaked information regarding the confidential disciplinary   investigation had been unsubstantiated.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Ms Tsatani complained that she had not been heard by   an impartial tribunal as the President of the Court of Cassation had herself examined the recusal   request that the applicant had submitted against her, and had subsequently brought disciplinary   proceedings against the applicant.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 July 2016.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peeter Roosma (Estonia), President,   Ioannis Ktistakis (Greece),   Darian Pavli (Albania),   Diana Kovatcheva (Bulgaria),   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh (Ireland),   2 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat (Andorra),   Vasilka Sancin (Slovenia),   and also Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the disciplinary proceedings brought against Ms Tsatani, a prosecutor, had   been exclusively of a disciplinary nature not involving the criminal courts or criminal law. It further   noted that the 7-member or 9-member disciplinary councils of the Court of Cassation should be   regarded as a tribunal having full jurisdiction in the determination of disciplinary responsibility in   proceedings to which the guarantees of Article 6 applied. The civil aspect of Article 6 § 1 was   therefore applicable to the case, and the Court limited its examination to the issue of the fairness of   the proceedings before these bodies.   The Court noted that the national law at the time had provided that the President of the Court of   Cassation could bring disciplinary proceedings against civil and criminal judges and prosecutors by   conducting a preliminary investigation and bringing a disciplinary action. This power of the President   of the Court of Cassation, introduced in December 2015 for the first time since the Constitution of   1975 had come into force, was removed in 2021 and has not been reinstated to date.   As regards Ms Tsatani’s complaint that V.T., by examining the recusal request herself and by making   a public statement, had irreversibly compromised the proceedings, the Court noted with concern   that V.T. had issued an official press release while the preliminary disciplinary investigation was still   pending, despite disciplinary investigations against members of the judiciary being secret under   national law. The press release had mentioned the applicant by name, had referred to the pending   disciplinary case, had stated that V.T was fighting “big, interconnected interests” and that   Ms Tsatani’s recusal request was ill-founded and an “abuse of process”.   The Court noted that, at the time, V.T. was not only the president of the court hearing the   applicant’s disciplinary case but, as President of the Court of Cassation, had the highest authority   within the civil and criminal jurisdiction. Furthermore, V.T. was well known to the public on account   of her previous functions as interim prime minister. Therefore, she should have been particularly   careful not to give the impression that she wished to influence the outcome of the proceedings.   The Court further noted, drawing inspiration from relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the   European Union (Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet (30 April 2025, C-313/23, C-316/23, C-   332/23, EU:C:2025:303), that since the prospect of opening a disciplinary investigation against   members of the judiciary was liable to exert pressure on the latter, it was essential that those vested   with the authority to conduct disciplinary investigations and bring disciplinary proceedings against   members of the judiciary should act objectively and impartially. Therefore, it found that V.T. had had   the obligation to act objectively and impartially when conducting the preliminary investigation and   bringing the disciplinary proceedings against Ms Tsatani, who was a member of the judiciary.   The Court noted that the 9-member disciplinary council had not made any mention of V.T.’s public   statement, issued in the context of the proceedings, while rejecting as unsubstantiated Ms Tsatani’s   allegation that V.T. had leaked information on the disciplinary investigation. Thus, the council had   failed to address the impact of that statement of on the fairness of the proceedings.   The Court reiterated that Article 6 of the Convention was not concerned with the outcome of   proceedings, but guaranteed fairness in the proceedings themselves, including the guarantee of   impartiality. V.T.’s statement was of itself incompatible with the notion of an “independent and   impartial tribunal”, in view of its content and the context in which it was issued, it being understood   that what was at stake here was not actual proof of influence or of pressure on judges but the   importance of being seen to be impartial.   3 The Court drew attention to the case’s singular context, particularly the fact that V.T. had previously   served as interim prime minister a few months before bringing the disciplinary proceedings, and that   the Law (legal report) vesting the President of the Court of Cassation with the disciplinary authority   in question also noted that the latter had the general supervision and control of all judges.   Therefore, the Court considered that Ms Tsatani’s concerns as to the impartiality of the courts that   had heard her case had not been unreasonable, subjective or unjustified.   It concluded that the proceedings had therefore failed to meet the required Convention standard.   There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   In the absence of a claim for just satisfaction, the Court made no such award.   Separate opinion   Judge Roosma expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4