DISCIPLINARY RESPONSIBILITY IN THE MECHANISM FOR ENSURING THE GOODNESS OF JUDGES: NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

Abstract

The article examines the issue of bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility in the aspect of ensuring their integrity. The current state of regulatory regulation of disciplinary liability of judges is analyzed, the dependence of disciplinary penalties on specific types of disciplinary offenses is determined. The subject structure of disciplinary proceedings against judges is also considered, attention is focused on the fact that this issue is one of the key ones in the aspect of ensuring the principle of independence of the judge, which must be observed in a democratic state. The combination of the principles of independence and responsibility of judges is regulated by numerous norms of international law and is based on a special sphere of administration of justice, the object of work in which are living people. That is why judges are increasingly subject to demands of a moral and ethical nature, which are covered by the category of «integrity», since the general state of ensuring the rule of law and the protection of human rights depends on compliance with these requirements. Special attention is paid in the article to the latest legal positions of the Supreme Court regarding the practice of reviewing complaints against decisions on disciplinary liability of judges. Thus, the Supreme Court emphasized that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to the judge during disciplinary proceedings, since the applicability of this principle is limited only to criminal cases. Under the condition of consideration of disputes that are covered by the civil law aspect, the burden of proving guilt may be transferred to the defendant. The position of the Supreme Court regarding the dismissal of a judge as a result of disciplinary proceedings was also analyzed: according to it, the court, when considering cases of appeal against decisions of the High Council of Justice on the dismissal of a judge, which were decided as a result of disciplinary proceedings, cannot assess the facts or circumstances of a disciplinary case. The conclusion that such a position corresponds to the provisions of the law, which contain a specific and comprehensive list of grounds for appealing the decisions of the High Council of Justice on bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, is substantiated.