Judgments Ribarev and Ilievska and Zdraveva v. North Macedonia - Restriction on judges' access to court in dismissal proceedings breached the Convention

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 267 (2025)   13.11.2025   Restriction on judges’ access to court in dismissal proceedings   breached the Convention   In today’s Chamber judgments1 in the cases of Ilievska and Zdraveva v. North Macedonia   (application nos. 19689/21 and 42794/22) and Ribarev v. North Macedonia (no. 39987/22) the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1   (access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The applicants are former judges. In 2020, 2021 and 2022, they were dismissed from office with final   effect by the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”) after Appeal Panels set up within the Supreme Court   specifically to hear appeals by them, quashed initial decisions by the SJC for their dismissal and   remitted the cases for fresh consideration.   Under section 72(6) of the State Judicial Council Act, no appeal may be lodged against an SJC   decision adopted after the remittal of a case. The applicants’ subsequent appeals were not assessed   on the merits.   The Court found, in particular, that since there was no possibility for a subsequent review of the   SJC’s decisions taken after remittal, neither the Appeal Panel nor any other judicial body could assess   whether the SJC had, in fact, adequately responded to the findings of the Appeal Panel in each of the   applicants’ cases and therefore the Appeal Panels’ inability to ascertain whether the SJC had   complied with instructions given by it when remitting the applicants’ cases had restricted the   applicants’ right of access to a court to such an extent that the very essence of that right had been   impaired.   Principal facts   The applicants in the first case are Silvana Ilievska and Suzana Zdraveva; the applicant in the second   case is Stojanche Ribarev. They are all Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia and   were born in 1958, 1963 and 1964 respectively. Ms Ilievska lives in Bitola and Ms Zdraveva and   Mr Ribarev live in Shtip.   Ms Ilievska is a former judge of the Bitola Court of First Instance. On 10 February 2020 the State   Judicial Council (“the SJC”) dismissed her for professional misconduct. She appealed, and on 12 June   2020 a second-instance panel (“the Appeal Panel”), formed within the Supreme Court specifically to   hear her case, quashed the SJC’s decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On   15 October 2020 the SJC issued a further dismissal decision. Her subsequent appeal was rejected by   the SJC on 15 December 2020 as inadmissible, referring to section 72(6) of the SJC Act. She was told   that no appeal could be lodged against that decision.   Ms Zdraveva is a former judge of the Shtip Court of Appeal. On 14 July 2021 the SJC dismissed her   from her post as judge. On 29 November 2021 an Appeal Panel formed to hear her case upheld her   appeal and quashed the SJC’s decision. The case was remitted to the SJC which, on 18 April 2022,   issued a further dismissal decision. On 6 May 2022 Ms Zdraveva appealed against the SJC’s decision.   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.   On 6 March 2023 the Supreme Court requested her case file from the SJC. On 15 March 2023 the SJC   declined to provide it, and the Supreme Court adjourned the selection of members of a further   second-instance panel to decide her appeal for an undetermined period of time.   Mr Ribarev is a former judge of the Supreme Court. On 14 July 2021 the SJC dismissed him from his   post as a judge for professional misconduct. On 9 August 2021 he appealed against that decision. On   1 December 2021 an Appeal Panel formed for his case upheld his appeal and quashed the SJC’s   decision to dismiss him and remitted the case. On 7 April 2022 the SJC issued a further dismissal   decision. On 9 May 2022 Mr Ribarev appealed against the second dismissal decision of the SJC.   On 6 March 2023 the Supreme Court requested Mr Ribarev’s case file from the SJC. In March 2023   the SJC declined to provide it, and the Supreme Court adjourned the selection of members of a   further second-instance panel to decide his appeals for an undetermined period of time.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 (access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants   complained, in particular, that they had been unable to challenge the SJC’s decisions to dismiss them   following the remittal of their cases by the Appeal Panels. Ms Zdraveva also complained of a   violation of the principle of legal certainty. Lastly, Mr Ribarev complained about the manner in which   the SJC had applied the statutory provisions regarding the applicable time-limit for initiating the   proceedings for his dismissal.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 August 2022.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Arnfinn Bårdsen (Norway), President,   Jovan Ilievski (North Macedonia) – first case only (nos. 19689/21 and 42794/22)   Saadet Yüksel (Türkiye) – second case only (no. 39987/22)   Péter Paczolay (Hungary),   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir (Iceland),   Gediminas Sagatys (Lithuania),   Stéphane Pisani (Luxembourg),   Juha Lavapuro (Finland),   and also Dorothee von Armin, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court considered it appropriate to examine the complaints solely under Article 6 § 1.   The Court found that the SJC, which had dismissed the applicants from their judicial posts, was a   “tribunal” within the meaning of the Convention. It was a specialised full-time body established by   law and had the power to decide matters concerning judges’ appointment, career and disciplinary   proceedings, including their dismissal. It performed a judicial function in professional misconduct   proceedings relating to judges, to which the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 applied. Consequently, the   applicants had had access to a national court in respect of their dismissal and Article 6 § 1 was   applicable in its civil aspect.   Following that conclusion, the Court considered that the applicants’ complaints about their inability   to appeal against the SJC’s second decisions ought to be assessed as complaints concerning access to   a higher court. The Appeal Panels in each of the applicants’ cases had been composed of nine   professional judges, selected by drawing lots. The fact that the Appeal Panel was composed on an ad   hoc basis did not affect its independence, given that the judges had a permanent term of office and   2 could only be dismissed under certain clearly defined circumstances. The Court found that the   Appeal Panel was also a “tribunal” within the meaning of the Convention.   There was no dispute between the parties that the domestic law provided for the possibility to   appeal against a decision of the SJC in professional misconduct proceedings against a judge and the   applicants had indeed done so. The Appeal Panels formed for the applicants’ cases had upheld their   respective appeals and had quashed the dismissal decisions, identifying shortcomings in the SJC’s   findings. Since there was no possibility for a subsequent review of the SJC’s decisions taken after   remittal, neither the Appeal Panel nor any other judicial body could assess whether the SJC had, in   fact, adequately responded to the findings of the Appeal Panels in each of the applicants’ cases.   The Court expressed concern that that impossibility for a subsequent review practically rendered   even the first appeal before the Appeal Panels devoid of any meaning. In particular, the absence of   any judicial mechanism capable of verifying whether the SJC had duly complied with the binding   instructions of the Appeal Panels undermined the effectiveness of the appeal process and weakened   the practical guarantees of judicial protection inherent in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In the   applicants’ cases, the strong public interest in upholding the rule of law and ensuring public   confidence in the judiciary required an assessment of whether the SJC had complied with the   instructions of the Appeal Panels.   In view of those considerations, and, in particular, the Appeal Panel’s inability in the applicants’   cases to ascertain whether the SJC had complied with its earlier instructions in the remitted   proceedings, the Court concluded that the applicants’ right of access to a court had been restricted   to such an extent that the very essence of that right had been impaired.   In the light of those findings there was no need to give a separate ruling on Ms Zdraveva and Mr   Ribarev’s remaining complaints.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that North Macedonia was to pay to Ms Ilievska 3,600 euros (EUR) in respect of non-   pecuniary damage and EUR 975 in respect of costs and expenses.   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.   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)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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.   3