Background
Alexandros Savvas, then a president of the Court of Appeal, was denied promotion to the Greek Court of Cassation in 2018. During the internal appeal proceedings, several judges criticized his professional conduct and work. Savvas subsequently served three of those judges with out-of-court declarations disputing their accounts, describing their statements as vague, false, or slanderous, requesting retraction, and reserving his right to pursue legal remedies. A bailiff delivered the declarations, and the Minister of Justice received notice of them.
Following a preliminary investigation, disciplinary proceedings were brought against Savvas for inappropriate conduct in and outside judicial service. A seven-member disciplinary council of the Court of Cassation imposed a three-month suspension, reasoning that the declarations’ content, threatening tone, and delivery through a bailiff were incompatible with judicial office and harmed the reputation of the judiciary. A nine-member disciplinary council upheld that decision. Savvas then applied to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Greece violated Article 10. The suspension interfered with Savvas’s freedom of expression because it was imposed for the content and form of his declarations rather than for any failure to perform his judicial duties. Although the interference was prescribed by law and was assumed to pursue legitimate aims, it was not necessary in a democratic society.
The Court regarded Savvas’s strongly worded characterizations as akin to value judgments supported by a sufficient factual basis. His statements responded to comments made by judges in their official capacity during an internal promotion process, did not concern his adjudicatory function, and did not exceed permissible limits despite being exaggerated. Service by a bailiff and notification to the Minister did not make the declarations public. The domestic courts also failed adequately to assess their impact or weigh Savvas’s positive record and lack of prior discipline against the severity and chilling effect of a three-month suspension. The Court awarded him EUR 5,211.15 for lost salary, EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
Key Takeaways
- Judges retain Article 10 protection when responding to official criticism affecting their professional reputation, even though their office requires restraint and careful language.
- Strong or unpleasant wording does not by itself justify discipline where the statements are value judgments with a sufficient factual basis and remain within permissible limits.
- When disciplining a judge for expression, domestic authorities must assess the statement’s context, audience, factual foundation, impact, and the sanction’s severity and chilling effect.
Why It Matters
The judgment clarifies that private or intra-institutional criticism by judges cannot be treated as equivalent to public attacks on the judiciary. Delivery through a bailiff and notice to a government minister did not transform Savvas’s declarations into public speech or establish damage to judicial authority.
It also underscores that judicial-discipline bodies must provide relevant and sufficient reasons and conduct a genuine proportionality analysis. A career-affecting suspension cannot be justified through generalized references to judicial dignity, particularly where the judge’s criticism has evidentiary support and responds to allegations bearing directly on promotion and professional reputation.