Sylvaine Poillot Peruzzetto (Member of the ELI Executive Committee; Judge of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation)) opened the event by welcoming participants and highlighting the significance of the ELI-Mount Scopus European Standards of Judicial Independence in safeguarding judicial integrity. She emphasised that ethical responsibilities lie at the heart of judicial decision-making, as judges are accountable for upholding justice while remaining protected by guarantees of security of tenure and irremovability.
Leah Wortham (Co-Reporter; Professor Emerita, The Catholic University of America) provided an overview of Standards 30 to 37. She emphasised that judicial independence safeguards democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, and highlighted the distinction between ethical guidance and disciplinary measures, stressing that vague standards should not be weaponised against judges. Drawing on Poland’s experience, she emphasised the need for precise disciplinary rules, fair trial guarantees, and independent review bodies. Complaints must be screened to prevent misuse, and judicial discipline should never target decision content. While judges must maintain impartiality, they may have a duty to speak out when the judiciary is under threat. Wortham also distinguished between disciplinary measures and incapacity procedures, calling for clear safeguards in both areas.
Fryderyk Zoll (Co-Reporter; Professor, Jagiellonian University of Cracow and University of Osnabrück) discussed the evolution of disciplinary procedures from a self-regulating model to one susceptible to political misuse. While not a criminal process, disciplinary systems must uphold key legal safeguards to prevent judicial independence from being undermined. The framework developed within the ELI-Mount Scopus European Standards of Judicial Independence aims to assess disciplinary models and prevent their weaponisation against judges. Zoll emphasised that vague concepts like ‘judicial dignity’ should not justify disciplinary action; instead, specific, legally defined misconduct is required. While flexibility is needed, procedural safeguards – such as due process, proportionality, and legal certainty – are essential. The Standards seek to balance accountability with judicial independence, ensuring disciplinary procedures do not become tools for political control.
Tea Jaliashvili (First Deputy Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR) highlighted ODIHR’s work in strengthening judicial independence and accountability across 57 participating states. She discussed the alignment between the ELI’s Standards and OSCE’s Warsaw and Kyiv Recommendations, which address ethical standards, judicial discipline, and independent judicial councils. Emphasising the need for clear, enforceable codes of conduct, she warned against the misuse of disciplinary procedures for political retribution. She also outlined the OSCE’s broader efforts, including legislative support, trial monitoring, capacity building, and fostering dialogue among key stakeholders. Jaliashvili reaffirmed the OSCE’s commitment to upholding the rule of law, stressing the importance of regional and universal frameworks in safeguarding judicial integrity amidst evolving challenges.
Georg Kodek (President of the Austrian Supreme Court) acknowledged the challenges of drafting a text such as the ELI Standards. Among other things, he questioned its added value, in light of its breadth – with Standards ranging from justice quality to technology – and its over specificity in some areas. However, he recognised its role in awareness raising, particularly in emerging democracies. He expressed optimism about global judicial independence, in the historical context, and stressed the link between ethical and legal standards. Advocating for flexibility in disciplinary rules, he emphasised the importance of fostering a strong legal culture over rigid codes. Kodek noted the document’s potential to shape discussions on judicial freedom of expression and independence, while suggesting areas for refinement.
Temur Shakirov (Director (ad interim), Europe and Central Asia Programme, International Commission of Jurists) highlighted the challenges facing judicial independence in Europe and more broadly, noting the increasing pressure on judges from political forces. He emphasised that reforms often intended to improve systems, such as tackling corruption, can inadvertently undermine judicial independence. Shakirov welcomed ELI’s Standards, particularly their focus on judicial independence at the core of judicial ethics, and the recognition that judicial independence requires continuous vigilance. He stressed the importance of fostering a culture of independence and the duty of judges to speak out against threats to democracy, noting that judicial discipline can both strengthen and harm judicial independence.
The interventions were followed by lively discussions.
More information about the project and the ELI-Mount Scopus European Standards of Judicial Independence is available here.
The recording of the webinar is available below.
Other webinars in the series:
- Webinar I the Foundations of Judicial Independence, 15 January 2025 – recording here.
- Webinar II on Judicial Governance and Judicial Appointments and Promotion, 29 January 2025 – recording here.
