Legal issue: the constitutionality of the rule which does not provide for the right of a judge, whose disciplinary case is being considered by the qualification panel, to challenge the chairman or a member of the panel because of doubting their impartiality.
Ratio decidendi: since the legislation in force provides for the mechanism of judicial review of a decision of qualification panel of judges on bringing a judge to disciplinary responsibility in the form of an early deprivation of judicial powers, and also from the point of view of compliance of panel’s members with the principles of objectivity and impartiality, the contested provision may not be regarded as violating the constitutional rights of the applicant.
Nobody may serve as a judge in his own case and review the legality of his own decisions and actions. The contested regulation is incompatible with the legislative and ethical rules aiming at the prevention of the conflict of interests. It makes impossible the review of decisions of qualification panel on the grounds of its member being biased, because the law does not admit challenging such a member in principle. The Constitutional Court ought to deem the regulation in question to be unconstitutional.
Status of judges