## Facts

- András Baka, a Hungarian national and former judge of the European Court of Human Rights, was elected in 2009 as President of Hungary’s Supreme Court for a fixed six-year term ending in June 2015, and served ex officio as President of the National Council of Justice.
- The National Council of Justice had statutory responsibilities that included expressing views on draft legislation affecting the judiciary.
- During 2010–2011, Hungary pursued major constitutional and legislative reforms restructuring the judiciary and court administration.
- In his official capacities, Baka publicly criticized several reform measures, including proposals affecting judicial independence, judicial administration, restructuring of the supreme jurisdiction, and a lowered mandatory retirement age for judges.
- Constitutional and legislative amendments later renamed the Supreme Court as the Kúria, reorganized judicial governance, and adopted transitional provisions that terminated Baka’s mandate with immediate effect before the end of his fixed term.
- New eligibility criteria for President of the Kúria were introduced that Baka did not satisfy, preventing him from standing for the new position.
- The termination occurred by operation of constitutional and legislative changes rather than through an individualized procedure, and no domestic tribunal had jurisdiction to review the termination.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 6 § 1 applied because Baka had an arguable civil right in his fixed-term mandate, and whether Hungary denied him access to a court to challenge its premature termination.
2. Whether the premature termination interfered with Article 10 freedom of expression and, if so, whether it was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 6 § 1.
- The court held Baka had a civil right tied to the legally guaranteed fixed term of office, and he was completely denied access to any tribunal to contest the premature termination.
- The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 10.
- The court held the termination was intrinsically linked to Baka’s public criticisms of judicial reforms and constituted an interference with protected speech on matters of public interest.
- The court concluded the interference was not necessary in a democratic society, emphasizing the lack of safeguards against abuse and the chilling effect on judicial speech about judicial independence.

## Legal Principles

- A fixed-term judicial mandate created and protected by domestic law can constitute a “civil right” for Article 6 § 1 purposes; later constitutional restructuring does not automatically remove Convention protection for that right.
- A blanket bar on judicial review of measures terminating a judge’s mandate can violate Article 6 § 1, especially where the measure affects judicial status and independence.
- Judges’ speech, including in an official capacity, on proposed reforms affecting the judiciary and the administration of justice is speech on matters of public interest and receives strong protection under Article 10.
- Removing a judge from office in response to such speech can constitute retaliatory interference under Article 10; the likely chilling effect on other judges is a significant factor in assessing necessity.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber held that Hungary violated Article 6 § 1 by denying any judicial remedy against the early termination of the Supreme Court president’s fixed term, and violated Article 10 by ending his mandate in response to official, public criticism of judicial reforms, an interference unjustified in a democratic society given the absence of safeguards and its deterrent effect on judicial participation in public debate.


Baka v. Hungary, App. No. 20261/12 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 23, 2016) (Grand Chamber)