Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The article is devoted to the analysis of the judge's freedom of expression in a constitutional crisis, using the ECtHR case of Żurek v. Poland as an illustration. The argument begins with a discussion of the facts of the case and the judgment. At this point, I argue that the category of discriminatory legalism is relevant to the facts of the case. Further, two interrelated problems are addressed, which are considered to be particularly relevant for the expression of the judge in the course of the constitutional crisis. These are: 1) the relevance of Article 10 in relation to speaking in one's professional (here: judicial) capacity, and 2) an attempt to determine whether the judge's opposition to a constitutional crisis is an exercise of his or her freedom or a duty. On both issues, I also present the position of Judge Wojtyczek, who challenged the majority views in his separate opinion (partly dissenting, partly concurring). I believe that the disagreement between Wojtyczek and the majority goes to fundamental philosophical-legal issues and can be described as a friction between the analytical and post-analytical approaches to law.
The article is devoted to the analysis of the judge's freedom of expression in a constitutional crisis, using the ECtHR case of Żurek v. Poland as an illustration. The argument begins with a discussion of the facts of the case and the judgment. At this point, I argue that the category of discriminatory legalism is relevant to the facts of the case. Further, two interrelated problems are addressed, which are considered to be particularly relevant for the expression of the judge in the course of the constitutional crisis. These are: 1) the relevance of Article 10 in relation to speaking in one's professional (here: judicial) capacity, and 2) an attempt to determine whether the judge's opposition to a constitutional crisis is an exercise of his or her freedom or a duty. On both issues, I also present the position of Judge Wojtyczek, who challenged the majority views in his separate opinion (partly dissenting, partly concurring). I believe that the disagreement between Wojtyczek and the majority goes to fundamental philosophical-legal issues and can be described as a friction between the analytical and post-analytical approaches to law.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right protected by the major international human rights instruments and national constitutions. The right to freedom of expression is treated as one of the key elements of a democratic society and it can be considered essential to human dignity. However, this right is not absolute and it can, if certain preconditions are met, be subjected to limitations, as indicated by the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Judges also enjoy the right to freedom of expression. Although the participation of judges in debates on matters of public interest is considered very important, especially when it comes to the regulation of the status of judiciary, the nature of the judicial function dictates restrictions on the freedom of expression of judicial office holders in order to protect public confidence in the judicial branch of government and its reputation. Public expression of personal views may raise dilemmas regarding the impartiality of a judge. The paper will draw attention to the importance of protecting the freedom of expression of judges, but also to the issue of necessity and legitimacy of its restrictions. Legal provisions regulating the right to freedom of expression of judges in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be examined, as well as examples from the practice of disciplinary bodies relating to the exercise of the aforementioned right. Legislative solutions adopted in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be compared with provisions adopted in other countries and subjected to critical evaluation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.