issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 228 (2025)  
07.10.2025  
Former judge did not have effective legal avenue to challenge decision not to  
reappoint him following his term as a government minister  
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Misiūnas v. Lithuania (application no. 38687/22) the  
European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1  
(right of access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  
The applicant is a former judge who had taken up a post in the Government. When his term in  
Government came to an end, he submitted requests to be reappointed as a judge. The President of  
the Republic declined to reappoint him. The domestic courts refused to accept for examination  
claims brought by the applicant, holding, in particular, that it was within the powers of the President  
to decide on judicial appointments, and that they had no jurisdiction to hear his case.  
The Court found that the domestic courts had failed to provide an effective legal remedy capable of  
addressing the substance of the applicant’s complaint, despite him having a legitimate and  
reasonable expectation that his application for re-entry into the judicial profession would be given  
proper consideration. There had been no exceptional or compelling reasons to justify the lack of  
judicial review of the President’s decision.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, Eimutis Misiūnas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Vilnius.  
In 2015 the applicant was appointed as a judge of the Vilnius City District Court. In 2016 he was  
dismissed from that post, at his own request, to take up a job in the Government. He served as  
Minister of the Interior and then as the Vice-Minister of the Ministry of Defence. When his term as  
Vice-Minister came to an end in December 2020, the applicant asked to be re-appointed as a judge.  
In accordance with the Constitution and the Law on Courts, decisions on the appointment of judges  
are made by the President of the Republic. The Law on Courts provides for the possibility for a  
former judge who has discontinued her or his career as a judge to apply, within a certain period, to  
be reappointed without having to undergo a competitive exam or selection proceedings.  
In January 2021 state officials, including the President of the Republic, made public statements  
expressing the view that the applicant would not be reappointed for reasons including concerns  
about his impartiality and the idea that a “cooling off” period was necessary after a political post. No  
formal decision on reappointment was taken.  
The applicant instituted administrative proceedings. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court  
refused to accept the claim for examination, considering that the activities of the President of the  
Republic could not be the subject of an administrative dispute. The applicant subsequently instituted  
civil proceedings. Those proceedings were ultimately unsuccessful, with the Lithuanian courts  
holding that it was within the powers of the President of the Republic to decide on judicial  
appointments and so the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claims.  
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,  
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges  
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final  
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.  
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.  
In 2022 the applicant submitted a new request to the President of the Republic, asking to be  
reappointed as a judge. Having been issued security clearance, the applicant was interviewed by the  
Judicial Council, which subsequently voted in favour of his reappointment. Nonetheless, the  
President of the Republic declined to reappoint him. No official reasons were given but the applicant  
was told that there were concerns about his activities while he had been in Government and his  
future plans to take part in politics. A further set of civil proceedings instituted by the applicant were  
unsuccessful. The Vilnius Regional Court held that the courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the  
applicant’s claim. The Court of Appeal upheld that finding and the Supreme Court refused to accept  
for examination an appeal by the applicant on points of law.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been denied an  
effective right of access to a court as the Lithuanian courts had refused to hear his case concerning  
the President of the Republic’s decision not to reappoint him as a judge.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 August 2022.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Norway), President,  
Saadet Yüksel (Türkiye),  
Jovan Ilievski (North Macedonia),  
Peeter Roosma (Estonia),  
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir (Iceland),  
Stéphane Pisani (Luxembourg),  
Juha Lavapuro (Finland),  
and also Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
The Court concluded that the domestic courts had failed to provide the applicant with an effective  
legal remedy capable of addressing the substance of his complaints.  
The Court accepted that there was arguably a “right” recognised under Lithuanian law to a fair  
procedure in judicial re-appointment, including the right to be protected against arbitrary and  
discriminatory rejection and a “right” to a fair procedure in the examination of an application for the  
return to a judicial post.  
The Court emphasised that a clear link existed between the integrity of the judicial appointment  
process and the requirement of judicial independence. The relevant international standards required  
that any decision concerning the selection and career of judges, or at least the procedure under  
which such a decision was made, should be amenable to judicial review. In view of the particular  
circumstances of the case, the exclusion of the applicant, a judicial candidate who met the statutory  
eligibility requirements, from a reappointment procedure in the absence of any judicial review of  
that decision by an ordinary tribunal or other body exercising judicial powers, could not be regarded,  
in view of the importance of the protection of judicial independence, as being in the interest of a  
State governed by the rule of law.  
The Government essentially argued that the exclusion of judicial review had nevertheless been  
called for in the circumstances of the applicant’s case given the exclusive constitutional prerogatives  
and the role of the President of the Republic in the appointment of the judiciary.  
2
However, as a former judge who had taken up a post in the Government, the applicant had the right  
to be considered for the post of judge without undergoing a competitive exam or selection  
procedure. When seeking reappointment, he had obtained the necessary clearances and had been  
interviewed by the Judicial Council which, having assessed the applicant’s candidacy on the basis of  
competency and integrity criteria, had advised the President of the Republic to appoint him to the  
post of district court judge. The applicant could therefore have had a legitimate and reasonable  
expectation that his application for re-entry to the judicial profession would be given proper  
consideration, subject to transparent and objective evaluation, devoid of arbitrariness. While it had  
been implied that statements made by the applicant concerning the possibility of his taking up  
another position in Government in the future and concerns about his activities when he was  
minister, might have influenced the decision of the President, no such reasons had been formally  
communicated to the applicant. There was no basis for finding that the dispute concerned any  
exceptional or compelling reasons that could justify its exclusion from a judicial review.  
The domestic courts had failed to consider the applicant’s situation as a whole and had considered  
his grievances in isolation. The Court concluded that the applicant’s attempts to obtain a judicial  
review by the domestic courts, in order to effectively scrutinise any errors which might have  
occurred during the reappointment proceedings, had been thwarted by the domestic courts’ failure  
to provide an effective legal remedy capable of addressing the substances of the applicant’s  
complaint.  
The Court held that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court.  
Just satisfaction (Article 41)  
The Court held that Lithuania was to pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-  
pecuniary damage.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,  
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.  
Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.  
Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.  
Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection  
Press contacts  
[email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)  
Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member  
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.  
3