Freedom of Expression of Judges and the Influence of Social Media
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2025.9.1.886Keywords:
Freedom of Expression, Judges, Social Media, Independence and Impartiality of Judiciary, Ethics, ECtHRAbstract
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and its recent decision (Żurek v Poland, application no. 39650/19), continues to shape standards for judges’ freedom of expression, including standards to protect judges who speak out against detrimental judicial reforms and use of social networks by judges. As new cases emerge and soft law instruments are developed, the topic remains highly relevant and will continue to pose challenges for judges in the years to come. Judges in some EU members States face unprecedented challenges to the rule of law, as evidenced by judicial reforms in countries like Poland and Hungary. The erosion of judicial independence and impartiality in this context underscores the importance of judges’ freedom of expression as a safeguard against threats to the rule of law. Raising awareness on this issue should equip judges with legal knowledge and procedural safeguards necessary to navigate the complexities of their professional roles while upholding fundamental principles of judicial independence and integrity. Furthermore, social networks have revolutionised communication in modern society, including judges. While use of social media by judges can enhance transparency and public engagement, it also raises concerns about the appropriateness of their communication, especially regarding impartiality. Judges must navigate the blurred lines between their private and public personas on social media platforms, as their actions and interaction can have implications for their perceived impartiality and judicial integrity. While there are articles devoted to the analysis of the judges’ freedom of expression in constitutional crises in this paper authors are providing a comparative analysis of social media usage guidelines for judges and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to identify a proper balance between exercising the freedom of expression by judges and the limitations posed by interest of judicial independence, impartiality and public trust in judiciary and specific issues relate to the use of social networks.
References
Al-Billeh, T. (2023). Disciplinary Measures Consequent on the Judges’ Misuse of Social Media in Jordanian and French Legislation: A Difficult Balance between Freedom of Expression and Restrictions on Judicial Ethics. Kutafin Law Review, 10(3), 681-719, https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2023.2.25.681-719 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2023.2.25.681-719
Casarosa, F., Fajdiga, M. and Moraru, M. (2025). Freedom of Expression of Judges – European and National Perspectives. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003470779
Cooper, B. (2014). Judges and Social Media: Disclosure as Disinfectant. SMU Science and Technology Law Review, 17(4), 521-539.
Dijkastra, S. (2017). The Freedom of the Judge to Express his Personal Opinions and Convictions under the ECHR. Utrecht Law Review, 13(1), 1-17, http://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.37 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.371
Elosegui, M. (2021). The Independence of the Judiciary in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: The Case of Baka v. Hungary. In: Elosegui, M., Miron, A. and Motoc, I. (eds.), The Rule of Law in Europe: Recent Challenges and Judicial Responses (pp. 69-88). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56001-0_6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56001-0_6
Fajdiga, M. (2023). Freedom of Expression of Judges on Social Media: A Case Note on the Order Ds-ss 1/2021 of the Disciplinary Court of the Judicial Council of the Republic of Slovenia. Ljubljana Law Review, 83, 221-233, https://doi.org/10.51940/2023.1.221-233 DOI: https://doi.org/10.51940/2023.1.221-233
Fajdiga, M. and Zagorc, S. (2023). Freedom or Feardom of Expression of Judges? Exploring the ‘Chilling Effect’ on Judicial Speech. European Constitutional Law Review, 19(2), 249-270, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019623000093 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019623000093
Gehringer, F. A., Rank, H., Muhamerovic, M. and Splavnic, S. (2021). Between Freedom of Expression and the Judicial Duty of Independence. The Public Opinion of Judges, 3, 98-108.
Khotynska-Nor, O. and Moskvych, L. (2021). Limits of a Judge’s Freedom of Expressing His/Her Own Opinion: The Ukrainian Context and ECtHR Practice. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 11(3), 170-180, https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-4.3-n000077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-4.3-n000077
Lemmens, K. (2024). Judges on Social Media: Freedom of Expression versus Duty of Judicial Restraint – Lessons from Danilet v. Romania. Available at: https://strasbourgobservers.com/2024/06/07/judges-on-social-media-freedom-of-expression-versus-duty-of-judicial-restraint-lessons-from-danilet-v-romania/ (accessed on 30.04.2025).
Matić Bošković, M. (2017). Tužilački saveti i garancija tužilačke autonomije u državama Zapadnog Balkana. [Prosecutorial Councils and Guarantees of Prosecutors Autonomy in Western Balkan States] Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu [Annals of the Facutly of Law in Belgrade], 65(1), 169-186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/AnaliPFB1701169M
Matić Bošković, M. (2020). Role of Court of Justice of the European Union in Establishment of EU Standards on Independence of judiciary. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC), 4, 329–351, https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/11907 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/11907
Matić Bošković, M. and Kostić, J. (2020). How to build common features of the justice systems in candidate countries and EU Member States. In: Blažo, O., Mokrá, L., Máčaj, A., (eds.), Bratislava legal forum 2020. Legal Challenges for the new European Commission (pp. 101-114). Bratislava: Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Law.
Matić Bošković, M. and Kostić, J. (2021). New EU Enlargement Strategy Towards the Western Balkans and Its Impact on Rule of Law. Slovak Yearbook of European Union Law, 1, 37-58, https://doi.org/10.54869/syeul.2021.1.248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54869/syeul.2021.1.248
Matić Bošković, M. and Nenadić, S. (2018). European Judicial Standards. Foreign Legal Life, 62(1), 39-56, https://doi.org/10.5937/spz1801039B DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/spz1801039B
Meyer, N. H. Jr. (2014). Social media and the Courts: Innovative Tools or Dangerous Fad? A Practical Guide for Court Administrators. International Journal for Court Administration, 6(1), 1-27, https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.136
Miliković, I. (2023). Freedom of Expression of Judges in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu [Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law in Novi Sad], 57(1), 327-350, https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns57-41810 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns57-41810
Mullor, J. S. (2023). Spain, Judicial Independence, and Judges’ Freedom of Expression: Missing an Opportunity to Leverage the European Constitutional Shift? European Constitutional Law Review, 19(2), 271-293, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019623000081 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019623000081
Novaković, M. (2019). A peculiar case of loyalty of the UN staff. In: Novaković, M. and Kostić, J. (eds.), The position of the individual in modern legal systems (pp.181-192). Belgrade: Institute of Comparative Law.
Novaković, M. (2022). A review of the efficiency of justice and other elements of the 2022 – 2025 CEPEJ action plan: “Digitalisation for a better justice”. In: Kostić, J. and Matić Bosković, M. (eds.), Digitalization in Penal Law and Judiciary (pp. 201-213). Belgrade: Institute of Comparative Law, Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56461/ZR_22.DUKPP.15
Novaković, M. and Perović, B. (2021). Understanding deliberative democracy and its constructive criticism. Serbian Political Thought, 74(4), 33-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22182/spm.7442021.2
Psychogiopoulou, E. and Casarosa, F. (2020). Social media before domestic courts in Europe: An analysis of free speech cases. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 27(6), 791-805, https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X20979191 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X20979191
Rosales, C. M. and Vargas, O. R. (2022). Freedom of Expression of Judges’ Communication. Regional Law Review, 48-70. https://doi.org/10.56461/iup_rlrc.2022.3.ch3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56461/iup_rlrc.2022.3.ch3
Schoeller-Schletter, A. (2019). Impartiality of Judges and Social Media: Approaches, Regulations and Results. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
Seibert-Fohr, A. (2021). Judges’ Freedom of Expression and Their Independence: An Ambivalent Relationship. In: Elosegui, M., Miron, A. and Motoc, I. (eds.), The Rule of Law in Europe: Recent Challenges and Judicial Responses (pp. 89-110). Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56001-0_7
Wojtanowski, M. (2023). ECtHR: Żurek v Poland (Application no. 39650/18, 16 June 2022): Constitutional Crisis and the Judge’s Freedom of Expression. Bratislava Law Review, 7(2), 213-226, https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2023.7.2.716 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2023.7.2.716
CEELI Institute (2019). Report on Practical Guidelines on the use of Social Media by Judges: Central and Eastern European Context. Available at: http://jupiter.hr/content/uploads/2020/01/CEELI-Institute_SoMe_Judges_GuidelinesNov2019_-1.pdf (accessed on 30.04.2025).
Commentary on Bangalore Principles (2007). Available at: https://www.unodc.org/conig/uploads/documents/publications/Otherpublications/Commentry_on_the_Bangalore_principles_of_Judicial_Conduct.pdf (accessed on 30.04.2025)
Conseil supérieur de la magistrature. Compendium of the Judiciary’s Ethical Obligations. Available at: http://www.conseil-superieur-magistrature.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/gb_compendium.pdf (accessed on 30.04.2025).
Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). Opinion No. 25 (2022) on freedom of expression of judges, CCJE (2022)4.
Council of Europe (2021). The Ethical Aspects of the Use of Social Networks – Guide for Judges and Public Prosecutors. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/hf9-social-media-guide-judiciary-srp/1680a4f1c7 (accessed on 30.04.2025).
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Guide to Judicial Conduct, revised July 2023.
CSM. A welcome message from the presidents. Available at: http://www.conseil-superieur-magistrature.fr/composition-organization (accessed on 30.04.2025).
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Comission) (2015). Report On the Freedom of Expression of Judges. Opinion no 806/2015, CDL-AD(2015)018, 23 June 2015
European Convention on Human Rights
European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2013). Sofia declaration. Available at: https://www.encj.eu/images/stories/pdf/GA/Sofia/encj_sofia_declaration_7_june_2013.pdf (accessed on 30.04.2025).
Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity (2002). Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.
Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers CM/Rec(2010)12 on Judges: Independence, Efficiency and Responsibilities
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
UNODC, Global Judicial Integrity Network (2019). Non-binding Guidelines on the Use of Social Media by Judges. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/res/ji/import/international_standards/social_media_guidelines/Social_Media_2020.pdf (accessed on 30.04.2025).
ECtHR, Wille v. Liechtenstein, app. no. 28396/95, 28 October 1999.
ECtHR, Albayrak v. Turkey, app. no. 38406/97, 31 January 2008.
ECtHR, Olujic v. Croatia, app. no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009.
ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, app. no. 29492/05, 26 February 2009.
ECtHR, Harabin v. Slovakia, app. no. 58688/11, 20.11.2012.
ECtHR, Baka v. Hungary, app. no. 20261/12, 23 June 2016.
ECtHR, Żurek v. Poland, app. no. 39650/19, 16 June 2022.
ECtHR, Tuleya v. Poland, app. nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, 6 July 2023.
ECtHR, Danilet v. Romania, app. no. 16915/21, 20 February 2024.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2025 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).
How to Cite
