Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Media Communication by Judges: Assessing Guidelines and New Challenges for Free Speech and Judicial Duties in the Light of the Convention

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Rule of Law in Europe

Abstract

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression of judges must be balanced with the legitimate interest of a democratic State in ensuring that its judges properly foster the purposes enumerated in Art. 10 (2) European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights has taken a nuanced approach which focuses on preserving public confidence in the judges’ capacity to properly perform their judicial task. Social media communication has prompted some Convention states to issue new rules for judicial behaviour as they perceive social media as a challenge to the public perception of judicial independence and impartiality. These rules raise some questions as to their compatibility with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 27 May 2014, No. 20261/12, para. 162; ECtHR [GC], Wille v. Liechtenstein, 28 Oct. 1999, No. 28396/95, para. 64; ECtHR, Albayrak v. Turkey, 31 Jan. 2008, No. 38406/97, paras. 41–42.

  2. 2.

    ECtHR, Vogt v. Germany, 26 Sept. 1995, No. 17851/91, para. 53 (concerning civil servants), ECtHR, Pitkevich v. Russia, 8 Feb. 2001, No. 47936/99, The Law para. 2 (concerning judges).

  3. 3.

    ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, 26 Feb. 2009, No. 29492/05, para. 86; ECtHR [GC], Morice v. France, 23 Apr. 2015, No. 29369/10, para. 128.

  4. 4.

    ECtHR, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 Jan. 1970, No. 2689/65, para. 31; ECtHR, Oleksandr Volkov v. Russia, 9 Jan. 2013, No. 21722/11, para. 106 (derived from R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256).

  5. 5.

    ECtHR, Vogt v. Germany, 26 Sept. 1995, No. 17851/91, para. 53; ECtHR, Albayrak v. Turkey, 31 Jan. 2008, No. 38406/97, para. 41; ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 27 May 2014, No. 20261/12, para. 162.

  6. 6.

    ECtHR [GC], Wille v. Liechtenstein, 28 Oct. 1999, No. 28396/95, para. 67. It further mentioned “severe criticism of persons or public institutions and insults of high officials”.

  7. 7.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 27 May 2014, No. 20261/12, para. 164.

  8. 8.

    ECtHR, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 Jan. 1970, No. 2689/65, para. 31; ECtHR, Oleksandr Volkov v. Russia, 9 Jan. 2013, No. 21722/11, para. 106.

  9. 9.

    See e.g. ECtHR, Olujic v. Croatia, 5 Feb. 2009, No. 22330/05, paras. 63, 67; cf. ECtHR, Buscemi v. Italy, 16 Sept. 1999, No. 29569/95, paras. 65 et seq.

  10. 10.

    For an overview of the different tests involved, see ECtHR, Olujic v. Croatia, 5 Feb. 2009, No. 22330/05, paras. 57 et seq.; exemplarily, see ECtHR, Lavents v. Latvia, 28 Nov. 2002, No. 58442/00, paras. 118-119; ECtHR, Buscemi v. Italy, 16 Sept. 1999, No. 29569/95, para. 68.

  11. 11.

    ECtHR [GC], Wille v. Liechtenstein, 28 Oct. 1999, No. 28396/95, para. 67.

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 27 May 2014, No. 20261/12, para. 171.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    Ibid, para. 64.

  16. 16.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 27 May 2014, No. 20261/12, para. 165.

  17. 17.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 27 May 2014, No. 20261/12.

  18. 18.

    Ibid, paras. 165, 168 et seq.

  19. 19.

    Ibid, paras. 166–171.

  20. 20.

    Ibid, para. 166.

  21. 21.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 27 May 2014, No. 20261/12, paras. 171–175.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR, Previti v. Italy (No. 2), 18 Dec. 2009.

  23. 23.

    Ibid, paras. 253–254, 258.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, 26 Feb. 2009, No. 29492/05, para. 86; see also ECtHR [GC], Wille v. Liechtenstein, 28 Oct. 1999, No. 28396/95, para. 64; ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 27 May 2014, No. 20261/12, para. 164.

  26. 26.

    ECtHR, Di Giovanni v. Italy, 9 Jul. 2013, No. 51160/06, para. 81.

  27. 27.

    ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, 26 Feb. 2009, No. 29492/05, para. 94.

  28. 28.

    Ibid, para. 93.

  29. 29.

    See Dürholt (1977), pp. 217, 220. Besides cultural changes within the judiciary, a trigger for this development was also the Federal Constitutional Court’s (FCC) decision, in which the Court held that civil servants are also endowed with civil rights, FCC, BVerfGE, 14 March 1972, 33, 1 (9 ff.). As a consequence, the duties of judges were held to be only admissible if they did not unlawfully infringe their civil rights. Hence, the duty of restraint now had to be balanced with the judge’s freedom of expression, see FCC, 30 Aug. 1983—2 BvR 1334/82—, NJW 1983, 2691.

  30. 30.

    Lord Mackay waived the strict duty of restraint in 1987, saying that “judges should be free to speak to the press, or television, subject to being able to do so without prejudicing their performing of the judicial work. […] Judges should be permitted to speak out” (The Times (London), 4 November 1987, 3).

  31. 31.

    See Salas (2000), para. 212, “[…] magistrat reste silencieux dans le débat, secret dans sa délibération et elliptique dans ses motivations.” Greilsamer and Schneidermann (1992) were the first judges to publicly speak about their work as judges. In 2007 the Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature (CSM) asked judges for a more activist interaction with the public/media, acknowledging, however, that this meant a mental revolution. CSM, Rapport Annuel, 2007, para. 122, see also CSM, Communiqués of 15 December 2005 and of 16 February 2006. Legal writer Bussy said in 2010, this revolution had started (Bussy 2010, p. 2526, para. 24).

  32. 32.

    See also ECtHR, Vogt v. Germany, 26 Sept. 1995, No. 17851/91, para. 53.

  33. 33.

    ECtHR [GC], Wille v. Liechtenstein, 28 Oct. 1999, No. 28396/95, para. 64; ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 27 May 2014, No. 20261/12, paras. 165, 171.

  34. 34.

    FCC, 8 Feb. 1967, BVerfGE 21, 139 (146); FCC, 8 June 1993, BVerfGE 89, 28 (36).

  35. 35.

    In the tradition of legal realism, German scholars have considered the judicial decision-making process to be a constructive process which should be inter-subjectively comprehensible, pointing out that professional ethics, rules of bias and disciplinary law should not remain “anachronistic” interpretations of the concepts of separation of powers or judicial independence, but should enable an opening up of the judiciary. In their opinion, judges should open their views to public scrutiny in a transparent way by revealing them. Representing this thinking, see Scherer (1979), pp. 177–178.

  36. 36.

    See ECtHR, Olujic v. Croatia, 5 Feb. 2009, No. 22330/05, para. 58; ECtHR, Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, No. 10486/83, para. 47.

  37. 37.

    Cf. ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, 26 Feb. 2009, No. 29492/05, para. 86; FCC, 30 Aug. 1983—2 BvR 1334/82—, NJW 1983, 2691.

  38. 38.

    ECtHR [GC], Wille v. Liechtenstein, 28 Oct. 1999, No. 28396/95, para. 69; ECtHR, Albayrak v. Turkey, 31 Jan. 2008, No. 38406/97, para. 46.

  39. 39.

    ECtHR [GC], Wille v. Liechtenstein, 28 Oct. 1999, No. 28396/95, para. 69; ECtHR, Albayrak v. Turkey, 31 Jan. 2008, No. 38406/97, para. 46.

  40. 40.

    ECtHR, Albayrak v. Turkey, 31 Jan. 2008, No. 38406/97, para. 46.

  41. 41.

    ECtHR [GC], Wille v. Liechtenstein, 28 Oct. 1999, No. 28396/95, para. 67.

  42. 42.

    ECtHR [GC], Baka v. Hungary, 27 May 2014, No. 20261/12, para. 164.

  43. 43.

    ECtHR, Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, 22. April 2010, No. 40984/07, para. 159.

  44. 44.

    ECtHR, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 Jan. 1970, No. 2689/65, para. 31; ECtHR, Oleksandr Volkov v. Russland, 9 Jan. 2013, No. 21722/11, para. 106 (derived from R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256).

  45. 45.

    FCC, 11 Oct. 2011—2 BvR 1010/10, 2 BvR 1219/10, para. 17 (Di Fabio) (bias); FCC, 30 Aug. 1983—2 BvR 1334/82—, NJW 1983, 2691; Federal Administrative Court (FAC), 29 Oct. 1987—BVerwGE 78, 216—, NJW 1988, 1748, 1749 (duty of restraint).

  46. 46.

    CSM, S 079, 20.07.1994; CSM, Rapport Annuel, 2011, 01.01.2012, pp. 72–73.

  47. 47.

    Bourdieu (1987), p. 808.

  48. 48.

    ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, 26 Feb. 2009, No. 29492/05, para. 86 with further references.

  49. 49.

    Heritier, in: Wagner/Sherwin (Hrsg.), Law, Culture and Visual Studies, 2014, p. 25 ff.; Lembcke (2013), p. 49 f.; see also Luhmann (1969), p. 55 ff.

  50. 50.

    ECtHR, Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, No. 22714/93, para. 40; ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, 26 Feb. 2009, No. 29492/05, para. 86.

  51. 51.

    ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, 26 Feb. 2009, No. 29492/05, para. 86.

  52. 52.

    The following assessment is my own; for a similar assessment, see ENCJ, Justice, Society and the Media Report 2011-2012, p. 9. For an assessment of social media as platform for personal communication, associative activities and self-presentation, see Rowbottom (2006), pp. 489, 498 et seq.; note, that this is a general overview which concentrates on the common challenges of social media use for judges. For specific behavioural guidelines, it might me worthwhile to distinguish between the different platforms and the different types of judges.

  53. 53.

    FCJ, 12 Jan. 2016—3 StR 482/15.

  54. 54.

    Portelli, http://chroniquedelhumaniteordinaire.blogs.nouvelobs.com/ (président de chambre près la Cour d'appel de Versailles); Barella, http://lajustice.blogs.liberation.fr/; Bilger, http://www.philippebilger.com/; Rosenczveig, http://www.rosenczveig.com/ (président du tribunal pour enfants de Bobigny) ; Huyette, le paroles de juge, http://www.huyette.net/.

  55. 55.

    ENCJ, Justice Society and the Media, Report 2011–2012, pp. 19–20.

  56. 56.

    Recueil des obligations déontologiques des magistrats, 2019, Charte de déontologie de la juridiction administrative, 2018; UK Supreme Court (UKSC) Guide to Judicial Conduct, 2019; Guide to Judicial Conduct, 2020, revised; Code of Conduct for the FCC, https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/DE/Richter/Verhaltensleitlinie/Verhaltensleitlinien_node.html.

  57. 57.

    Gablers Wirtschaftslexikon, “Soziale Medien”, last accessed 27 August 2019.

  58. 58.

    Ibid.

  59. 59.

    With respect to traditional media, communication theory scholars have pointed out that reporting is generally attention-focused which means that it strives for topical information, customer proximity, surprise effects, a confrontational character of reporting and a focus on people and events, These parameters roughly cluster the criteria that Schulz has identified as guiding the media’s choice regarding the information they report, Schulz (1976), p. 31 et seq.; ibid, Schulz (1997), p. 70 et seq.; Strohmeier (2004), p. 124; cp. also Meyer (2001), p. 47 et seq.

  60. 60.

    For the possibilities of personal data processing, see Consultative Committee of the Convention for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data, Report on Artificial Intelligence, T-PD(2018)09Rev, 15.10.2018.

  61. 61.

    It has been discussed what it means for proceedings if a judge is a “friend” with one of the parties to the proceedings or an attorney (Rojahn and Jerger 2014, p. 1147).

  62. 62.

    Charte de déontologie de la jurisdiction administrative, 16 March 2018, para. 47.

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Ibid, para. 47-1.

  65. 65.

    Guide to Judicial Conduct, March 2018, revised version, p. 14. See also the UKSC Guide to Judicial Conduct, 2019, para. 3.5.

  66. 66.

    Guide to Judicial Conduct, March 2018, revised version, p. 18.

  67. 67.

    UKSC Guide to Judicial Conduct, 2019, para. 5.20, also raising the Justices’ awareness that communication on social media is “not private, that comments may be copied and have an unintended readership and longevity; and that it is increasingly easy to piece together information on a Justice from a variety of sources.”

  68. 68.

    Ibid.

  69. 69.

    CDP, P013, 09/10/1987; décret no 59-1292, 13 Nov. 1959; Recueil des obligations déontologiques des magistrats, Chapter VIII, para. 10; Charte de déontologie de la jurisdiction administrative, 16 March 2018, para. 44, especially with respect to political or social matters.

  70. 70.

    Recueil des obligations déontologiques des magistrats, Chapter VIII, para. 8.

  71. 71.

    Charte de déontologie de la jurisdiction administrative, 16 March 2018, para. 47. Recueil des obligations déontologiques des magistrats, Chapter VIII, para. 14; annex pp. 72–73.

  72. 72.

    Charte de déontologie de la jurisdiction administrative, 16 March 2018, paras. 47-1, 47-2.

  73. 73.

    Ibid, paras. 47-2, 47-3; Recueil des obligations déontologiques des magistrats, Chapter II, para. 14; annex p. 72-73.

  74. 74.

    FAC, 29 Oct. 1987—BVerwGE 78, 216 -, NJW 1988, 1748, 1749.

  75. 75.

    FCC, 30 Aug. 1983—2 BvR 1334/82 -, NJW 1983, 2691; FAC, 29 Oct. 1987—BVerwGE 78, 216—, NJW 1988, 1748, 1749. Cf. Wassermann, NJW (1995), pp. 1653–1654.

  76. 76.

    FCJ, 9 Aug. 2006 - 1 StR 50/06, NJW 2006, 3290, 3295, beck para. 51; Scheuten, in: Hannich (eds.), Karlsruher Kommentar zur StPO, 8th ed. 2019, sec. 24 para. 22; UK Guide to Judicial Conduct, March 2018, revised version, p. 17.

  77. 77.

    UK Guide to Judicial Conduct, March 2020, revised version, pp. 13–15; UKSC Guide to Judicial Conduct, 2019; Recueil des obligations déontologiques des magistrats, Chapter VIII, para. 8. Administrative judges are generally asked to refrain from mentioning their profession when making commenting on matters of a political or social nature, Charte de déontologie de la jurisdiction administrative, 16. March 2018, para. 44.

  78. 78.

    ECtHR, Buscemi v. Italy, 16 Sept. 1999, No. 29569/95, para. 67.

  79. 79.

    For such an assessment, see Sunstein (2001).

  80. 80.

    ECtHR [GC], Wille v. Liechtenstein, 28 Oct. 1999, No. 28396/95, para. 69; ECtHR, Albayrak v. Turkey, 31 Jan. 2008, No. 38406/97, para. 46.

  81. 81.

    Ibid.

References

  • Bourdieu P (1987) Die Macht des Rechts. Hastings Law J 38(5):814–853

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussy F (2010) Justice et Médias. Recueil Dalloz 38:2526–2535

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürholt K (1977) Richteramt und Meinungsfreiheit. ZRP:217–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Greilsamer L, Schneidermann D (1992) Les juges parlent. Fayard, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lembcke O (2013) Autorität der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit – eine Skizze in vergleichender Absicht. In: Michael W et al (eds) Die Politik des Verfassungsrechts. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Baden-Baden, pp 37–65

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1969) Legitimation durch Verfahren. Suhrkamp, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer T (2001) Mediokratie. Suhrkamp, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojahn A, Jerger C (2014) Richterliche Unparteilichkeit und Unabhängigkeit im Zeitalter sozialer Netzwerke. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2014:1147–1151

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowbottom J (2006) Media freedom and political debate in the digital era. Modern Law Rev 69(4):489–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas D (2000) Le tiers-pouvoir. Hachette, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer J (1979) Gerichtsöffentlichkeit als Medienöffentlichkeit. Athenäum, Bodenheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz W (1976) Die Konstruktion von Realität in den Nachrichtenmedien. Alber Karl, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz W (1997) Politische Kommunikation. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strohmeier G (2004) Politik und Massenmedien: Eine Einführung. Nomos, Glashütte

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C (2001) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany

    Jannika Jahn

Authors
  1. Jannika Jahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Judge at European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France

    María Elósegui

  2. Professor at University of Angers, Angers, France

    Alina Miron

  3. Judge at European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France

    Iulia Motoc

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jahn, J. (2021). Social Media Communication by Judges: Assessing Guidelines and New Challenges for Free Speech and Judicial Duties in the Light of the Convention. In: Elósegui, M., Miron, A., Motoc, I. (eds) The Rule of Law in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56001-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56001-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56000-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56001-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation