Freedom of Expression of Judges, the Duty of Discretion and Judicial Independence in Danileţ v Romania : Striving for Clarity, Ending in Greater Obscurity

On 15 December 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) issued a Grand Chamber judgment in Danileţ v Romania. 1 The case concerned the freedom of expression of a first instance court judge, who had been disciplined for publishing two messages on his public Facebook profile.While most prior cases concerning freedom of expression of judgesan increasingly prolific area of the Court's case lawcan be described as fairly straightforward, Danileţ was a contentious case, where the outcome was far from obvious.As usual, the Court's decision hinged on the question of whether the restriction of freedom of expression was proportionate.The Court found a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) with ten votes to seven.The majority ruled that the applicant's statements were acceptable, 2 while the dissenting judges argued that the applicant had violated his duty of discretionan obligation, requiring judges to exercise restraint and moderation in their public appearances to preserve the public trust in their European