The ECHR defended judges’ freedom of speech: disciplinary punishment for Facebook posts was found to be a violation of the Convention

The Grand Chamber of the ECHR has adopted an important decision on the limits of judges’ freedom of expression on social media

The European Court of Human Rights has found that the disciplinary punishment of a judge for critical posts on Facebook violated his right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Grand Chamber of the ECHR emphasized that judges, like other citizens, have the right to participate in public debates on the rule of law, judicial reform and the functioning of state institutions. At the same time, any interference by the state in the exercise of this right must be necessary, justified and proportionate.

The judge was punished for two posts on Facebook
Disciplinary proceedings were opened after a resonance in the media

The case concerned a Romanian judge who actively spoke out in the public space on democracy, judicial reforms and the rule of law. In January 2019, he published two posts on Facebook that caused a wide public outcry and were actively discussed in the media.

The first post contained criticism of state institutions and a mention of the role of the army in protecting constitutional democracy. The second was a comment on an interview with a prosecutor on the problems of judicial reform, using the emotional expression “to have blood in your veins”.

After that, the Judicial Inspectorate under the High Council of Magistracy of Romania opened disciplinary proceedings against the judge for alleged behavior that harmed the authority of justice. He was subsequently punished with a 5% salary reduction for a period of two months.

ECtHR: Criticism of the authorities does not mean undermining trust in the court
National authorities did not prove a threat to justice

In examining the case, the ECtHR recognized that the disciplinary sanction was indeed an interference with the judge’s freedom of speech. At the same time, the Court stressed that the national authorities had failed to prove that the disputed publications actually threatened the independence or impartiality of the judiciary.

Separately, the Grand Chamber stressed that the mere fact of public resonance or the critical nature of the statements could not automatically be grounds for disciplinary punishment of a judge.

The Court also did not establish any calls for violence or unlawful actions in the applicant’s posts.

The Court found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention

The sanctions against the judge were considered disproportionate

As a result, the ECtHR concluded that the reasons given by the Romanian authorities for punishing the judge were not “relevant and sufficient”, and that the interference with his freedom of expression did not meet a “pressing social need”.

Therefore, the Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

The Court dismissed the complaint about the judge’s reputation
Article 8 of the Convention was declared inapplicable

The applicant argued separately that the disciplinary proceedings had harmed his professional reputation and private life.

However, the ECtHR did not agree with these arguments. The Court noted that the applicant had not been dismissed from his post, suspended from work, and the sanction in the form of a temporary reduction in salary had not had sufficiently serious consequences for his private life or professional reputation.

In this respect, the complaint was declared inadmissible.

The ECtHR’s decision has significance for the whole of Europe
The Court outlined the limits of freedom of expression for members of the judiciary

The decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, adopted on 15 December 2025, became one of the key precedents regarding the freedom of expression of judges on social networks.

The court effectively confirmed: the participation of judges in public discussions about democracy, justice reform, and the rule of law is permissible if their statements do not contain calls for violence and do not pose a real threat to trust in the judicial system.