STANDARDS OF DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS IN THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Abstract

The article examines the international standards of disciplinary liability of judges and prosecutors developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It analyzes the evolution of the Court's legal approaches to disciplinary proceedings as an essential guarantee of judicial independence, prosecutorial autonomy, and the rule of law. The study identifies the key substantive and procedural standards established by the ECtHR and assesses their significance for improving national legislation and disciplinary practice. The research focuses on the ECtHR judgments in Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, Denisov v. Ukraine, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal, Özpınar v. Türkiye, Kulykov and Others v. Ukraine, Erményi v. Hungary, Kövesi v. Romania, Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, and Tsatani v. Greece. It demonstrates that the Court has developed a coherent system of standards based on the principles of legality, legal certainty, independence and impartiality of disciplinary bodies, separation of procedural functions, proportionality of sanctions, effective judicial review, and the right to a fair hearing. The ECtHR also emphasizes that disciplinary proceedings must not be used as a means of political, administrative, or institutional pressure. The article further analyzes the Court's interpretation of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention in disciplinary cases, showing that sanctions affecting professional status, reputation, or career may interfere with the right to respect for private life. Particular attention is paid to the criteria of objective impartiality, institutional independence, and judicial review with full jurisdiction. It is concluded that the ECtHR has established universal disciplinary standards applicable to both judges and prosecutors despite differences in their constitutional status. Their implementation into national legislation and practice is essential for strengthening the rule of law, safeguarding judicial and prosecutorial independence, and enhancing public confidence in the justice system.