Органи, які уповноважені розглядати дисциплінарні провадження щодо судді: порівняльно-правовий аналіз

Disciplinary liability is the main form of control over judges in European countries. The article analyses the procedural and legal status of bodies authorised to consider disciplinary complaints regarding the activities of judges in various European countries. It highlights the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Some countries provide guarantees of independence for all institutions after the initial stage, including the investigating body and the decision-making body. Other countries point to certain risks of a particular form of politicisation of the judiciary. Some council systems have an appeal procedure before the Council of Judges. In contrast, in others, appeals are lodged with a higher court or the constitutional Court in certain circumstances. In several countries, court presidents can take disciplinary decisions in cases of warnings or a greater number of minor reprimands. In several countries, disciplinary proceedings are heard by a parliamentary committee on judicial discipline, the chief judge, the head of the appeals division, or a government disciplinary council for senior officials. In other cases, the ombudsperson and the chancellor of justice may initiate disciplinary proceedings. In most countries, there are guarantees to protect the independence and impartiality of institutions involved in disciplinary proceedings, particularly the decision-making body. The disciplinary responsibility of judges is important for ensuring the proper administration of justice in accordance with the rule of law and is necessary to maintain confidence in the judiciary. The procedural bodies involved in disciplinary proceedings must respect the separation of powers and the proper administration of justice. The disciplinary regime for magistrates is undoubtedly an area where we are witnessing a marked and rapid evolution of legal systems. Everyone knows the inadequacy of disciplinary control exercised over judges. All emphasize the necessary transparency of prosecutions and disciplinary decisions, the guarantee of trust in the judicial institution.