ECtHR: Bădescu and Others v. Romania (Application No. 22198/18, 15 April 2025)
Criminal Liability of Judges for Interpretation of Laws in the Exercise of Judicial Functions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2025.9.2.1130Keywords:
Judicial Independence, Exercise of Judiciary, Criminal Immunity of Judges, Criminal Prosecution of Judges, ECtHRAbstract
The criminal liability of judges is significantly limited by judicial independence, of which the criminal immunity of judges constitutes one of its facets. The judicial reform introduced by the 2020 amendment to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic created a framework for criminal prosecution of judges for so-called “bending of the law”. Given the lack of practical experience with its application, it is important to examine the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Bădescu and Others v. Romania. In this case, an analysis was made of what constitutes judicial decision-making and what constitutes preparation for it. Preparation for the issuance of a judicial decision enjoys a lower level of criminal immunity than the actual judicial decision-making itself.
References
Aravena, C. C., Salas, C. S., Jeßberger, F. and Kuhli, M. (2025). Transitional Justice and the Criminal Responsibility of Judges. London: Routledge: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003470069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003470069
Šamko, P. (2021). O zneužívaní trestného činu ohýbania práva v praxi On the abuse of the crime of bending the law in practice. Právne listy, published on 15 November 2021.
Šamko, P. (2022). Ako ohýbať právo pri trestnom čine ohýbania práva alebo ako kriminalizovať sudcu za jeho rozhodnutie How to bend the law in a crime of bending the law, or how to criminalise a judge for his decision. Právne listy, published on 22 January 2022.
Svák, J. (1993). Zásada zákazu odňatia veci zákonnému sudcovi. Justičná revue, 3/1993, 22–28.
Svák, J. (2021). Nadnárodné systémy ochrany ľudských práv. vol. 3. Ochrana súkromia a majetku. Bratislava: Wolters Kluwer.
Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted 06 September 1985 by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-independence-judiciary (accessed on 18.12.2025).
Code of Judicial Conduct (Bangalore draft). Available at: https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11746039_04.pdf (accessed on 18.12.2025).
ECtHR, Advisory Opinion on the applicability of statutes of limitation to prosecution, conviction and punishment in respect of an offence constituting, in substance, an act of torture, requested by the Armenian Court of Cassation, Request no. P16-2021-001, 26 April 2022.
European Charter on the statute for Judges (1998) (DAJ/DOC(98)23). Available at: https://rm.coe.int/090000168092934f (accessed on 18.12.2025).
Opinion no. 3 of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality, Strasbourg, 19 November 2002. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/168070098d (accessed on 18.12.2025).
Recommendation No. R (94) 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Independence, Efficiency and Role of Judges, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 October 1994 at the 518th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/12-recommendation-no-r-94-12-member-states-independence-efficiency-and-role-judges-1994 (accessed on 18.12.2025).
Venice Commission on 7 January 2025 under no. CDL-PI(2025)003: Compilation of Venice Commission opinions and reports concerning judges. Available at: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-PI(2025)003-e (accessed on 18.12.2025).
ECtHR, Bădescu and Others v. Romania, app. no. 22198/18 and others, 15 April 2025.
ECtHR, Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany, app. no. 34044/96 and others, 22 March 2001.
ECtHR, Kokkinakis v. Greece, app. no. 14307/88, 25 May 1993.
ECtHR, Jorgic v. Germany, app. no. 74613/01, 12 July 2007.
ECtHR, Soros v. France, app. no. 50425/06, 6 October 2011.
ECtHR, Haarde v. Iceland, app. no. 66847/12, 23 November 2017.
ECtHR, DMD GROUP, a. s. v. Slovak Republic, app. no. 19334/03, 5 October 2010.
ECtHR, Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria, app. no. 40072/13, 19 October 2021.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bratislava Law Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Author(s) transfers copyright to the Article to the Publisher of the Journal by the Licence Agreement.
The Author(s) retains rights specified in the Licence Agreement.
The readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all of the Article of the Journal and use them for any other lawful purpose under specified Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
