Czech Republic / Supreme Administrative Court / 11 Kss 6/2015 - 53 / Decision of the Disciplinary Chamber
Country
Czechia
Title
Year
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Incident(s) concerned/related
Related Bias motivation
Groups affected
Court/Body type
Court/Body
Key facts of the case
A judge was officially reprimanded by the Disciplinary Chamber for publishing several sarcastic and offensive articles on the migration crisis and about migrants, Muslims and humanitarian workers.
Main reasoning/argumentation
The Disciplinary Chamber argued that the freedom of speech of judges is limited by their duty to uphold the dignity of the office of a judge. A judge has to abstain from any activity that diminishes the dignity of the office and the public's trust in the independence of judges. A judge may present his/her opinions publicly, but in a moderate way that does not give the impression that he/she may be biased in decision-making.
Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?
Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case
A judge may present his/her opinions publicly, but in a moderate way that does not give the impression that he/she may be biased in decision-making.
Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case
The judge was officially reprimanded.
Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details
"Soudci je nicméně zapovězeno vyjadřovat veřejnou podporu konkrétnímu politickému subjektu či programu, případně podporovat či šířit myšlenky, které jsou v rozporu s principy demokratické společnosti. Korektivem jeho počínání musí být hranice, za níž by mohl vyvolat dojem, že jím prezentované názory by mohly mít vliv na výkon jeho soudcovské funkce. "
"A judge must not publicly support a political subject or a programme or support or spread ideas that are not in compliance with democratic principles. He / she must not cross the line beyond which his / her activities would create the impression that the opinions expressed could influence his/her performance of the judicial duty."