AFFAIRE ANGERJÄRV ET GREINOMAN c. ESTONIE

• Judgment Date: 04 October 2022
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1004JUD001635818
• Date: 04 October 2022
• Application Number: 16358/18;34964/18
• Court: Third Section (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: Estonia
• Applied Rules: 35;35-3-a

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ANGERJÄRV AND GREINOMAN v. ESTONIA

(Applications nos. 16358/18 and 34964/18)

JUDGMENT

Art 6 § 1 (criminal and civil) • Impossible under domestic law for lawyers to challenge their judicial removal from civil proceedings for allegedly acting incompetently, inappropriately, irresponsibly and obstructing the proceedings • Art 6 § 1 inapplicable • Judicial removal not constituting the determination of a criminal charge against the applicants or involving the determination of their civil right to practise their profession

Art 8 • Private life • Ratione materiae • Negative effects of impugned removal not crossing requisite threshold of seriousness • Application of consequence-based approach

STRASBOURG

4 October 2022

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Angerjärv and Greinoman v. Estonia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Georges Ravarani, President,

Georgios A. Serghides,

María Elósegui,

Darian Pavli,

Peeter Roosma,

Andreas Zünd,

Frédéric Krenc, Judges,

and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications (nos. 16358/18 and 34964/18) against the Republic of Estonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Estonian nationals, Mr Mart Angerjärv and Mr Maksim Greinoman (“the applicants”), on 2 April and 20 July 2018 respectively;

the decision to give notice to the Estonian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention concerning the applicants’ removal from civil court proceedings and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 21 September 2021, 11 January, 31 May and 30 August 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The similar applications by two lawyers concern the fact that it was impossible for them to challenge decisions by which judges had removed them from court proceedings for obstructing the proceedings and for inappropriate behaviour, and the impact that their removal had on their private lives.

THE FACTS

2. The applicants were born in 1980 and 1979 and live in Viimsi and Tallinn respectively.

3. The applicants were granted leave to represent themselves (Rule 36 of the Rules of Court).

4. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

5. The facts of the case may be...