Tsatani v Greece: Public statements during disciplinary proceedings breach impartiality standards

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a significant judgement concerning judicial impartiality in disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary. In Tsatani v Greece (Application no. 42514/16, 14 October 2025), the Court found that public statements by the President of the Court of Cassation during confidential disciplinary proceedings violated Article 6(1) of the Convention.

The applicant, a prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal, became subject to a preliminary disciplinary investigation in March 2016. Vassiliki Thanou, then President of the Court of Cassation, initiated the investigation following complaints from Cypriot authorities regarding the applicant's handling of a fraud case.

The applicant submitted a recusal request against Thanou on 4 April 2016, citing the President's prior role as interim prime minister in September 2015 and alleged relationships with both the deputy Minister of Justice and Cypriot officials. Critically, on 18 April 2016, whilst the preliminary investigation remained confidential, Thanou issued an official press release in her capacity as Court President. The release identified the applicant by name, analysed the merits of the recusal request, and characterised it as "unfounded" and an "abuse of process".

Thanou subsequently brought disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, resulting in a sanction of sixty days' salary deprivation. Both the seven-member and nine-member disciplinary councils of the Court of Cassation upheld the sanction and dismissed the applicant's objections regarding the recusal request.

The Court's reasoning

The Strasbourg Court applied the objective impartiality test, examining whether the proceedings offered sufficient guarantees to exclude legitimate doubt. Several factors proved decisive in finding a violation.

The Court emphasised the "singular context" of the case. The President of the Court of Cassation occupied a unique institutional position as the most senior judge within civil and criminal jurisdiction, with "general supervision and control of all judges". Thanou's previous service as interim prime minister heightened public recognition and amplified the impact of her statements.

Significantly, the Court noted that disciplinary investigations were required to be confidential under Greek law, yet Thanou had issued a public press release during the pending investigation. The statement not only identified the applicant but also pre-emptively dismissed the recusal request's merits, effectively taking a position on matters that should have been determined by the disciplinary councils.

The Court drew upon CJEU jurisprudence emphasising that disciplinary regimes for judges must prevent any risk of political control. Those conducting disciplinary investigations must act objectively and impartially, particularly given the inherent pressure such proceedings exert on judicial officers.

Crucially, the nine-member disciplinary council failed to address the impact of Thanou's press release on the proceedings' fairness. Whilst the council examined whether the recusal request was well-founded, it made no assessment of whether the public statement by the President—who had brought the disciplinary action and presided over the court hearing it—compromised the appearance of impartiality.

Implications

The judgement clarifies that high-ranking judicial officials conducting disciplinary investigations bear heightened obligations regarding public statements, especially where proceedings involve members of the judiciary and should remain confidential. The Court's emphasis on "appearances" reaffirms that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.

The decision also highlights the importance of subsequent review mechanisms addressing potential impartiality concerns comprehensively. Disciplinary bodies must actively consider whether prior public statements by investigating authorities have compromised the fairness of proceedings, rather than limiting analysis to the formal validity of recusal requests.

Tsatani v Greece reinforces safeguards protecting judicial independence from both external interference and internal hierarchical pressures, establishing that the prospect of disciplinary proceedings must not become a tool for exerting influence over members of the judiciary.