SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GEROVSKA-POPCHEVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA (No. 2)
(Application no. 30989/20)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Tribunal established by law • Art 6 applicable to proceedings in which the State Judicial Council (“SJC”) found professional misconduct on the part of a retired judge in the performance of her judicial functions • Impugned proceedings directly concerned her civil right to enjoy a good reputation • SJC, albeit constituting “a tribunal”, was not “established by law” • Members of the SJC Commission which had submitted a report to the SJC on the applicant’s case later voted for the SJC’s final decision in the case, in contravention with the relevant procedural rules
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Applicant’s inability to appeal against the SJC’s decision following the remittal of her case by a second-instance Appeal Panel • Appeal Panel’s inability to ascertain whether the SJC complied with its earlier instructions in the remitted proceedings deprived the applicant’s right of access to the Appeal Panel of any substance, even in the proceedings before remittal • Very essence of right of access to court impaired • Importance of procedural safeguards in proceedings concerning the performance of the judicial function reiterated
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
5 May 2026
 
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gerovska-Popchevska v. North Macedonia (no. 2),
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
 Saadet Yüksel,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
 Gediminas Sagatys,
 Stéphane Pisani,
 Hugh Mercer, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 30989/20) against the Republic of North Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, Ms Snezhana Gerovska-Popchevska (“the applicant”), on 13 July 2020;
the decision to give notice to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the composition of the Judicial Council of the Republic of North Macedonia (hereinafter “the State Judicial Council” or “the SJC”) which established professional misconduct on the part of the applicant, the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the SJC to give a ruling on professional misconduct in respect of retired judges and the rejection of the appeal lodged by the applicant against the SJC’s decision following a remittal, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the exemption of Judge Jovan Ilievski, the judge elected in respect of North Macedonia, from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court) and the decision of the President of the Chamber to appoint Judge Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 of the Rules of Court);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 24 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the fairness of the proceedings in which the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”) established that the applicant, a retired judge, had committed professional misconduct in performing her judicial functions. In particular, the case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that certain members of the SJC voted for the final decision of the SJC in her case, in violation of the procedural rules; that a member of the SJC who had participated in the proceedings against the applicant before her case was remitted by a second‑instance panel formed within the Supreme Court (“the Appeal Panel”), was subsequently replaced by another member of the SJC who had not participated in the previous stage of the proceedings; and that the SJC did not have jurisdiction to rule in professional misconduct proceedings against a retired judge. Lastly, the case concerns the applicant’s complaint that domestic law prevented her from appealing against the final decision of the SJC, delivered following the remittal of her case. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Skopje. She was represented by Mr V. Skrcheski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was a judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance no. 1 until May 2007, when she was dismissed from judicial office. The proceedings for her dismissal were described in the case of Gerovska Popčevska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 48783/07, §§ 7-15, 7 January 2016). Following her dismissal, the applicant worked as a lawyer. 6. In a judgment of 7 January 2016 the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the proceedings for the applicant’s dismissal, holding that the SJC had lacked the requisite impartiality and independence, given the participation of the then President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice in the SJC’s decision dismissing the applicant (ibid.

Outcome for Article 6: violation