Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

64

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms 
of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0

1 National Aviation Academy of AZAL CJSC, Azerbaijan
E-mail: k.akhundova@a-akhundoff.az
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7975-8984

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2024-10-5-64-75

INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LEGAL MECHANISMS  
OF JUDICIAL LIABILITY IN THE CONDITIONS  

OF ECONOMIC GLOBALISATION OF MODERN SOCIETY
Konul Akhundova1

Abstract. The subject matter of the study is the conceptual, theoretical, empirical, methodological and applied 
foundations of international and national legal mechanisms of judicial liability in the context of economic 
globalisation of modern society. Methodology. The present study employed a combination of general scientific 
and special legal methodologies. Through meticulous analysis, the quantitative and qualitative characteristics 
of the economic and legal essence of an independent and impartial judiciary as the nation's sole arbiter of 
justice were systematically delineated. The synthesis yielded a comprehensive overview of the legal framework 
governing the judicial accountability of judges across diverse legal systems, with particular consideration for each 
system's economic level of development. The employment of a comparative legal methodology has facilitated 
the identification of both common and distinctive characteristics in both international and national legislation.  
This is a scientific development that is indicative of the legal mechanism for holding judges to disciplinary liability. 
The formal-legal method established the foundations for formulating conclusions regarding the effectiveness of 
existing national legal regimes for holding judges accountable. The purpose of the present article is to determine 
the specific features of international and national legal mechanisms of judicial liability in the context of economic 
globalisation in modern societies. The results of the study show that the existing international legal mechanism of 
judicial liability developed by international institutions is quite effective and promising for implementation within 
the framework of national legal regimes, and the national mechanism of judicial liability needs to be improved 
both in terms of procedure and means of its implementation in connection with the economic development of 
society. Conclusion. The establishment of functional indicators of the judiciary has been undertaken, which are 
convergent in combination with economic indicators of the population's well-being, conditions for opening one's 
own business, ensuring financial and banking stability, GDP growth, the level of development of relevant sectors of 
industry and the economic sphere as a whole, etc. Among the indicators that reproduce the productivity of all three 
branches of government, the following are highlighted: the government efficiency index – the executive branch, 
the legislation quality index – the legislative branch, the rule of law index – the judiciary. A direct dependence 
of the economic development and rule of law indices has been revealed, since under the condition of ensuring 
the latter, there is a guarantee of the harmonious existence of all sectors of society, and conditions are created 
to prevent the emergence of existential threats to the national interests of the state, including the provision of 
human rights and freedoms. The mechanism for bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility has been established 
in accordance with international standards, including 1) a special procedure for bringing judges to disciplinary 
responsibility, which is defined by law; 2) the formation of an independent body that should consider such 
cases; 3) ensuring the right of a judge to participate in such procedure directly or through a representative, to 
exercise his right of defence and to express his opinion; 4) the right to appeal against the decision taken on the  
basis of the results of this procedure; 5) the exhaustiveness of the sanctions that can be applied and their 
proportionality. Within the framework of the national legal systems of the countries under consideration, the 
features of holding judges accountable in relation to their professional activities and for offences committed 
outside them are determined, which mediate the implementation of the content of the immunity and  
immunity of such officials. The procedure for holding judges criminally and disciplinarily liable is highlighted 
separately, and the reasons, grounds, procedure and subjects of the above-mentioned proceedings are  



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

65

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 
determined, which indicates the special status of bodies that ensure the achievement of a social  
compromise in the influence of society on the judiciary, in combination with the construction of ensuring the 
immunity of judges.

Keywords: judiciary, economic globalisation, rule of law index, index of economic freedom, international 
mechanism, national mechanism, judicial responsibility.

JEL Classification: F69, K41, H72

1. Introduction
The socio-political and economic processes inherent 

in modern world society are characterised by the 
manifestation of the phenomenon of convergence, i.e., 
the rapprochement of different peoples, ethnic groups 
and nations, not only in the field of law, economy and 
culture. The mutual influence of the socio-economic, 
legal and political life of different countries is mediated 
through direct (international, unilateral and multilateral 
treaties) and indirect channels (export-import 
operations regarding various types of objects, cultural 
events, exchange of information of a certain nature 
and form) of communication. This implementation 
includes legal instruments that provide the fundamental  
pillars of the existence of the state, among which  
justice occupies a decisive place.

Indeed, the provisions of international and national 
legislation are pertinent in terms of establishing the 
basis of justice, as one of the primary functions of 
the judiciary. The judiciary is designed to ensure 
a compromise between the functioning of the  
other two branches of power (the legislative and the 
executive) and between public and private interests 
(ensuring public order and guaranteeing the protection 
of human rights and fundamental freedoms for each 
individual).

The primary slogan, which is furnished by the 
pertinent socio-legal institutions, in a contemporary 
civilised nation, is the declaration of an autonomous 
and unbiased judiciary as a constituent of the 
apparatus of public power established by society. 
The operationalisation of justice on these principles 
engenders the prerequisites for the dynamic and 
progressive movement of such a state towards the 
formation of a civil society, permeated with structures 
designed to balance the interests of all members of 
society with ensuring fair satisfaction.

The aforementioned processes are either directly 
or indirectly related to other processes taking place 
in society, including those of an economic nature.  
It is inevitable that such processes will become  
subject to legal regulation at both the national and 
international levels.

Taking into account the long existence of Ukraine and 
Azerbaijan in a single legal field, their achievements  
and development prospects in the issues of  
introduction of instruments for the functioning of 
the judiciary, as well as the need to study the legal 

and economic conditions for the proper functioning  
of the judiciary, it was necessary to study the 
international and national legal mechanisms of  
judicial accountability as a means of ensuring the 
independence and impartiality of the judiciary in the 
conditions of economic globalisation of modern society 
using the example of the above-mentioned countries.

This issue has been the subject of research by 
a number of scholars from different perspectives of 
public administration, socio-legal and socio-economic 
nature.

Thus, the general features of the responsibility of 
judges have been considered in the context of: the 
general principles of public administration ensuring 
the independence of judges (Rikhter, 2020), the legal 
nature and content of the independence of judges 
with regard to the reform of the judiciary (Pivovar, 
2014), the constitutional and legal principles ensuring 
the independence of a judge of the Constitutional 
Court (Berch, Belov, Bysaha, 2023), the fulfilment of 
a judge's duty to improve legislation (Uygur, Gürgey, 
2022), the transition of the Spanish judicial system to 
the democratic principles of the existence of the state 
and society (Sánchez, 2009), the social function and 
responsibility of a judge (Lawton, 1968).

The national legal regime of judicial liability has 
become the subject of reflection: the example of Spain 
and Italy (Santos, 2018), the correlation between the 
institution of the appointment of judges and their  
legal liability in the context of ensuring guarantees  
of the independence of the judicial branch (Nikitin, 
2014), the correlation between the categories of 
responsibility and duty of judges in the context of 
the activities of the German higher courts (Nikitin, 
2014), judicial liability as a means of external control 
of the Supreme Court in the Chilean legal culture  
(Flores Calvo, 2020), the disciplinary liability of 
a judge in the legal field of Jordan (Moufleh, YAA,  
Thneibat, MJM, 2017), the nature of the legal liability 
of judges in the context of the relevant legal framework 
of Ukraine (Ovcharenko, 2018), the mechanism 
for implementing the institution of legal liability of  
judges in a comparative context on the example of 
Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Poland (Akhundova, 2024).

An analysis of the international legal regime  
of legal liability of judges was conducted in works 
devoted to the following issues: the implementation 
of international standards for holding these officials 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

66

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024
accountable (Germak, 2024), the analysis of 
European standards in this area and the features of 
their implementation (Bondarchuk, 2021), and the 
legal liability of judges from the perspective of the 
implementation of international standards in the field  
of the judiciary (Salenko, 2014).

The achievements of the scientific community  
that have been documented in the literature only serve 
to emphasise the relevance of this study. It is clear  
that a more detailed study and design are required  
in the context of determining the legal nature of 
international and national legal mechanisms of judicial 
liability in the context of economic globalisation of 
modern society.

2. Independent and Impartial Judiciary among 
the Parameters of Sustainable Economic 
Development of the State

The economy of any state is, in reality, sensitive 
to all phenomena and processes that occur in it.  
This phenomenon is reflected in the activities and 
functioning of the state through the corresponding 
structures. In the traditional approach, these structures 
are divided into three branches of state power:  
executive, legislative and judicial. The focal point of 
this study, particularly in the context of this section,  
pertains to the impact of the judiciary's functionality  
on the national economy and its associated processes. 

Moreover, in world practice there are functional 
indicators of the activity of the judiciary, which  
converge in combination with economic indicators 
of the well-being of the population, conditions for 
opening one's own business, ensuring financial 
and banking stability, GDP growth, the level of 
development of relevant industries and the economic 
sphere as a whole, etc. Therefore, within the framework 
of the generalisation of statistical data within the  
world economy, there are indicators of state development 
that directly or indirectly reflect the relevant economic 
indicators (Indicators.GlobalEconomy.com, 2024).  

It is evident that, in addition to the group of indicators  
of basic economic indicators, there are groups of 
indicators of the labour force, money, energy and the 
environment, agriculture, and, in the context of the 
subject of this discussion, governance and political 
system. In the latter group, indicators that reproduce 
the productivity of all three branches of government 
are of significance: the government efficiency index – 
the executive branch, the legislation quality index – the 
legislative branch, and the rule of law index – the 
judiciary. With regard to the other indices in this 
group, the following should be noted. Corruption 
control, voting rights and accountability, perception 
of corruption, political rights, civil liberties, business 
start-up costs as a percentage of per capita income, as 
indices in this group, are obviously complex in nature 
and therefore relate to all branches of government: 
 judicial, executive, legislative.

The available numerical data of the rule of law index 
in 2020-2022 indicate functionality, which can be 
reflected in the following chart, which contains data 
on representatives of global economic and geopolitical 
centres on different continents and directly Ukraine 
and Azerbaijan, which is shown in Figure 1 (Rankings.
GlobalEconomy.com, 2024).

However, it is worth paying attention to the  
index of economic freedom for the same period for the 
indicated countries (Comparator.GlobalEconomy.com, 
2024), which is to some extent relevant to the rule of 
law index, which is explained by the interdependence 
of the level of freedom and the lack of freedom from 
law enforcement, which clearly defines the boundaries 
of what is permitted, prohibited and encouraged  
by the state for the development of civil society and 
a liberal economy as the fundamental basis for the 
existence of an information society in a civilised  
modern state. 

The data presented in Figure 2 corroborates the  
validity of the aforementioned assumption, 
demonstrating a direct correlation between the  
indices, which reflect the rule of law. This rule of 

Figure 1
 

1,34
1,52

-0,1

-0,73 -0,71

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

USA Germany China Azerbaijan Ukraine

2020

2021

2022



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

67

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 

law is contingent upon economic freedom, which in  
turn is a determining factor in economic growth.  
It is only in such conditions that the parity of private 
and public interests can be achieved, the harmony  
of the existence of all segments of society can be  
ensured, and conditions can be created to prevent 
the emergence of existential threats to the national  
interests of the state, including the protection of  
human rights and freedoms.

There are different opinions among various  
researchers on the question of the influence of 
the guarantees of independence and immunity of 
judges, including the creation of legal bases for their 
accountability, on the economic indicators of the 
development of the state and society, which can 
generally be summarised as follows.

The opinion is expressed that the economic index of 
the rule of law is directly related to the level of GDP 
per capita, is also a guarantee of ensuring sustainable 
prosperity of the economy and the well-being of 
the population, creates conditions for stimulating 
investment and trade, contributes to the formation 
and development of entrepreneurship and healthy 
competition, the creation of new jobs, etc. (Abdulmumin, 
2017). The above considerations are fully confirmed 
by sociological surveys of respondents, and find  
statistical justification in the sources analysed above. 
At the same time, the researcher has appropriately 
established links between the rule of law index, which 
corresponds to the government's democracy index, 
in combination with education and maintenance 
of investment in human capital, infrastructure  
validation, stable monetary policy, monitoring of 
innovation and patent protection, partnership between 
raw materials, manufacturing and service industries  
and the level of GDP per capita. It is the growth of 
the first group of indicators that directly affects the 
growth of GDP per capita and is a means of achieving  
adequate development by developing countries that 
implement international standards in the field of  
human rights protection.

The presented considerations are fully supported  
by another researcher, who comprehensively  
considers the essence of the rule of law index in 
connection with the index of the effectiveness of the 
Chinese government and the mutual influence of the 
specified indicators of public authority activity on the 
liberal basis of the country's economic development 
(Zhan, 2010). The analysis provided an opportunity 
to project the Western model of determining the  
defining parameters of social development onto the 
level of Chinese realities.

The above position is also maintained with regard 
to the perception of the convergence of law and 
economics from the perspective of the implementation 
of the content of the rule of law principle, which is 
differentiated on the one hand as judicial autonomy 
and legal integrity, and on the other hand as the 
right to vote and accountability (Lane, 2011).  
Within the above parameters of the research, the analysis 
is based on World Bank statistics that link indicators 
of socio-economic development and economic 
development. Using the ASEAN+3 region as an 
example, it was found that, given the current dynamics 
of the relevant parameters, economic development 
cannot show signs of stability and predictability unless 
it is accompanied by the progressive implementation 
of the rule of law in one of the above-mentioned 
manifestations.

Based on the results of a study of the relationship 
between the rule of law and economic growth in 
developed and developing countries, using statistical 
data from the World Justice Project, a non-governmental 
organisation, the following conclusions have been 
drawn. The absence of corruption, public order,  
security, effective law enforcement, including an  
effective judicial system, and the utilisation of criminal 
justice as relevant structural components of the 
implementation of the content of the rule of law in 
a specifically selected state are directly related to the 
economy. Such a dependence is directly proportional 
in developed countries, and in developing countries 

Figure 2

 

77 74

60
69

55

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

USA Germany China Azerbaijan Ukraine

2020

2021

2022



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

68

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024
it is a functional dependence with certain uncertain 
parameters of social origin (Yang, 2012).

The conclusions drawn from the results of studying 
the quantitative and qualitative indicators of the 
economy and the functional transformation of the  
legal system of the countries of the former Soviet 
Union and the countries of Asia and Latin America 
are of significant and relevant interest. In confirmation  
of the aforementioned, it is posited that a direct 
dependence between the indicators of assessing the 
implementation of the rule of law in the relevant 
country's legal field and relevant indicators of economic 
growth can be formed only under the condition 
of economic stability, where its crisis elements are 
not permitted, for example, high inflation rates.  
The establishment of a liberal economy with clearly 
defined and comprehensible rules for all members 
of society is only possible on a voluntary legal basis 
(Shevchuk, Blikhar, Komarnytska, Tataryn, 2020).

In consideration of the subject of this study, it 
is reasonable to conclude that the relationship  
between the effectiveness of the judiciary and the 
economic development of the state is projected 
onto judicial independence and judicial oversight.  
This relationship is also relevant to the nature  
of the judicial system and a number of its other 
institutional features. In any case, the impact of judicial 
independence on the dynamics of the country's 
economic growth is direct (Sill, 2010).

The progression of impartiality and independence in 
the Taiwanese judiciary exemplifies the enhancement 
of numerous legal institutions, which has exerted 
a favourable influence on the nation's economic  
growth, demonstrating geometric progression. 
Concurrently, the independence of the judiciary,  
as a fundamental constitutional tenet, imposes 
constraints on the authority of the executive branch, 
while ensuring the preservation of human rights  
on the one hand and, on the other, serving as 
a prerequisite for economic restructuring and 
ensuring the enhancement of societal economic well-
being. Moreover, a significant conclusion within the 
context of the subject of this work is that the degree 
of implementation of judicial independence and its 
impartiality is directly dependent on the quality of 
the judicial system itself, in particular its personnel. 
This conclusion correlates with the instruments of 
responsibility of the courts within the framework of 
relevant regulatory and legal provisions on existing 
standards in this area (Liu, 2011).

Based on the results of the study of the impact of an 
independent and impartial judiciary on the progressive 
economic development of the state, it is necessary 
to conclude that there is a direct connection between 
these social parameters of the development of a  
civilised society, where only a fully developed judiciary, 
which can fully ensure justice, impartiality and  

efficiency in the settlement of a dispute on the merits, 
creates the prerequisites for the development of a  
liberal economy with prospects for the socio- 
economic development of the state and society.

3. International Legal Mechanisms  
of Judicial Responsibility

The international legal mechanisms of judicial 
responsibility have been reflected in international  
legal documents, in the jurisprudence of international 
courts and in academic research, which together have 
formed certain legal doctrines in this area.

Thus, within the framework of the Basic Principles 
on the Independence of the Judiciary, approved by 
Resolutions 40/32 and 40/146 of the UN General 
Assembly of November 29 and December 13, 
1985 (Basic Principles on the Independence of the 
Judiciary, 1985), general provisions on the nature of 
the principle of independence of judicial bodies and its 
interrelation with such manifestations of a functional 
nature as: freedom of expression and association; 
qualification, selection and training; conditions of 
service and term of office; professional secrecy and 
immunity; punishment, removal from office and 
dismissal are reproduced. Thus, in the section on 
"Disciplinary Sanctions, Suspension and Dismissal", 
this legislative act proposes strict compliance with 
the procedure for calling a judge to account, in which 
efficiency and fairness are of paramount importance. 
At the same time, an independent mechanism for 
reviewing decisions to hold a judge accountable must 
be guaranteed.

The following principles, which are directly  
related to the content of the independence of 
judges, are indicated in the prolonged declarative 
provisions set out in the norms of Recommendation  
No. R (94) 12 to Member States on the Independence, 
Efficiency and Role of Judges, approved by the 
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 
October 13, 1994 (Recommendation No. R (94) 12, 
1994): the relevant regulatory framework in the form 
of constitutional provisions and provisions of other 
legislative acts in appropriate interpretations that 
implement the requirements of these recommendations 
in national legislation, in particular by incorporating 
them directly into the system of certain domestic  
national law; the effectiveness of the mechanism of 
interaction and separation of the judiciary from the 
executive and legislative branches of government; 
the effectiveness of the personnel policy on the 
formation of the judiciary and the relevant professional 
development of these persons through certain 
procedural and functional mechanisms, including 
control and supervision; removal of any obstacles to 
decision-making in the administration of justice by the 
relevant judge through certain organisational and legal 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

69

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 
structures; functioning of an effective mechanism for 
the distribution of cases among judges of the relevant 
court; exclusivity of the list of grounds for recusal of 
a judge from consideration of a case and imperative  
and clear regulation of the recusal procedure itself.

The content of рrinciple III, "Appropriate working 
conditions", on the creation of adequate working 
conditions that enable judges to work effectively, 
reiterates the need to create a social status and a level 
of remuneration commensurate with their dignity  
and the responsibility they assume when they take up 
the duties of a public person authorised to exercise the 
functions of the judiciary.

The norms that reveal the content of рrinciple VI 
"Failure to perform duties and disciplinary violations" 
correspond to the above provisions. Thus, it is  
established that the ineffective and impartial  
performance of duties or the commission of 
a disciplinary offence shall lead to the adoption of the 
necessary countermeasures against such a person, 
which shall not affect the independence of the judiciary, 
including: removal from the case, assignment of 
the judge to other duties within the court, penalties 
(reduction of remuneration), temporary suspension 
from judicial functions. There are certain restrictions 
on the application of the above measures, such as 
the impossibility of requesting the recall of a judge 
appointed for an indefinite period, except in certain 
clearly defined cases (inability to conduct judicial 
proceedings, commission of a criminal offence or 
serious disciplinary misconduct). An additional 
guarantee of a judge's independence is the creation, 
within the framework of the procedure for holding 
a judge accountable, of a specially empowered body 
which must impose disciplinary sanctions and take 
disciplinary measures if these are not taken by the court. 
In this case, the Supreme Court may directly replace 
the aforementioned body or exercise control over its 
activities. In addition to the subject matter of the above-
mentioned procedure, the procedure for considering 
these cases has additional requirements, the essence 
of which is to formalise the judicial procedure itself in 
accordance with the requirements of the Council of 
Europe (Council of Europe, 1950). In consideration of 
the research conducted in this area and the content of 
the analysed principles, it is evident that the necessity 
arises to consider such a case within a reasonable 
timeframe and to exercise the right to respond to the 
accusation brought against the judge (Denysova, Blaga, 
Makovii, Kaliuzhna, 2022).

Of great practical and rational importance is the 
European Charter on the Status of Judges of July 10, 
1998 (European Charter, 1998), which, within the 
framework of unification of approaches of European 
countries to legislative definition of the legal status of 
judges in Europe, declared both the basic principles 
of implementation of the content of independence 

and impartiality of judges and the specifics of 
manifestation of these categories within the following 
components of legal personality of judges: selection, 
appointment and initial training; appointment and 
non-transferability; promotion; liability; remuneration 
and social protection; termination of powers.  
At the same time, among the factors of the component 
of the content of the independence of judges, the  
features of their accountability within the requirements 
defined by international law are clearly visible. That 
is, de facto, the quantitative and qualitative content of 
such an important legal category as the independence 
of judges is developing, in which the content and 
procedure of holding these officials accountable  
occupy a rather significant place.

The European Charter on the Status of Judges of 
July 10th 1998, in section 5 "Liability", defines the 
grounds for the impeachment of a judge - the failure of 
a judge to fulfil one of the duties clearly defined by law.  
The composition of the body responsible for  
considering the case of impeachment must include at 
least half of the elected judges. The judge is guaranteed 
the right to defence and to have the case reviewed by 
a higher court. The only requirement is that the list 
of sanctions that may be imposed on a judge must be 
defined by the law on the judiciary, and their application 
must comply with the principle of proportionality. 
A compensatory remedy for damage caused by a  
judge's misconduct is for the state to file a recourse 
action in court after the matter has been agreed with 
a special body independent of the executive and 
legislative branches of government.

Under the provisions of the Bangalore Principles 
of Judicial Conduct (Bangalore Principles of Judicial 
Conduct, 2006), indicators for the implementation of 
the content of the principles are defined, the purpose 
of which is to establish standards of ethical behaviour 
for judges. It is evident that the primary indicator is 
concerned with ensuring the independence of judges. 
It is imperative that judges maintain an independent 
position, both in relation to society as a whole  
and in relation to the specific parties involved in the  
court case in which they must make a decision. 
Furthermore, it is essential that they defend and 
support guarantees of the performance of judges'  
duties, thereby preserving and increasing the 
institutional and operational responsibility of judges.

The research on international legal mechanisms of 
judicial responsibility is multifaceted, most of which  
can be characterised as follows.

In connection with the above, it is correct to believe 
that there are mandatory and recommendatory 
provisions of international law that reflect the relevant 
norms and principles in the field of the judiciary  
and the status of judges, including the legal responsibility 
of judges. When forming and ensuring the conditions  
for the functioning of their own judicial systems, 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

70

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024
including the regulation of relations between the 
branches of government, the behaviour of judges, 
issues of their selection, appointment, promotion and, 
of course, responsibility, they should be guided by 
the subjects of international law, which are the states-
participants in the relevant agreements (Salenko, 2014).

The implementation of international standards 
in the field of the judiciary and ensuring the 
independence of this branch of government, as well 
as determining the procedure for holding judges 
accountable from the perspective of ensuring human 
rights and implementing relevant international 
standards, is a modern, civilised approach based  
on the content of the principle of the rule of law.  
It is proposed to increase the effectiveness of the work 
of the judicial branch of government in ensuring the 
protection of human rights and freedoms in order  
to increase the role and responsibility of the legislative, 
executive and judicial authorities (Kryzhanovskyi, 
2011).

Based on the results of the study of European  
standards of the judiciary and the status of judges, 
a conclusion is drawn about the compliance with 
the following features: regulated by the norms of 
international law; is mandatory or recommendatory in 
nature; the presence of a single approach to the content 
of such a standard leads to the formation of a single 
judicial practice. It is precisely such considerations that 
served as a prerequisite for the widespread application 
of the European Court of Human Rights in the  
issue of forming international standards in this area 
of judicial practice. It is proposed to differentiate 
the standards formed by the judiciary in the field of 
justice as recommendatory (Babenko, 2021). Such an 
approach cannot be accepted to a certain extent, taking 
into account the content of Art. 46 of the Council of 
Europe, which is also supported in scientific works 
(Makovii, Kuznichenko, Budyachenko, 2022).

Such considerations have also been confirmed 
by the case-law of the European Court of Human  
Rights, for example in the case of disciplinary liability 
of a judge on the basis of information concerning 
facts established in criminal proceedings, if such 
information has been analysed in the context of the 
rules of professional ethics, even in the case of acquittal 
of a person in criminal proceedings (Decision of the 
European Commission of Human Rights in the case of 
"X. v. Austria", 1982) or when such proceedings have 
been closed (Decision of the European Commission 
of Human Rights in the case of "C. v. the United 
Kingdom", 1987). Another case law of the European 
Court of Human Rights concludes that in the context 
of paragraph 2 of Art. 6 of the Council of Europe, 
the presumption of innocence should be applied to 
criminal proceedings and, in terms of the content of 
the provisions of this сonvention, the disciplinary  
procedure for a judge is radically different, since the 

standards of proof in such circumstances are of the 
opposite nature ( Judgment of the European Court of 
Human Rights in the case "Ringvold v. Norway", 2003).

Among the international standards in the field of 
judicial accountability proposed for implementation,  
the following stand out: 1) exclusion of the 
administration of courts from this procedure;  
2) definition of such a procedure only by law;  
3) formation of an independent body that should 
consider such cases; 4) ensuring the right of a judge 
to participate in such a procedure directly or through 
a representative, to exercise his right to defence and 
to express his opinion; 5) the right to appeal against 
the decision made on the basis of the results of the 
implementation of this procedure; 6) exhaustiveness 
of the sanctions that can be applied and their 
proportionality (Sulaymanov, 2021).

Taking into account the tendencies to further 
legitimise the judiciary in a democratic society, to 
improve the functionality of this form of power and, 
consequently, the responsibility of judges, the question 
arises as to whether these areas of the legal status  
of the judge should be projected into the judicial 
contribution to law-making through case law. In this 
regard, a certain expansion of the responsibility of  
judges is proposed, both in qualitative and quantitative 
terms, in particular by introducing flexible legal  
formulas for such responsibility, on the example of 
disciplinary, civil and deontological responsibility 
(Romboli, 2022).

Thus, international legal mechanisms for the 
responsibility of judges are reflected in the norms 
developed at the level of regulatory legal documents 
of a universal nature, as well as in the case law of 
international courts, following the example of the 
decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.  
In today's conditions the issue of implementation of 
such norms into the national legislation is a priority  
in every country, including Ukraine and Azerbaijan. 

4. National Legal Mechanisms  
of Responsibility of Judges

It should be noted that both Ukraine and Azerbaijan 
consistently comply with the provisions of the 
international legal acts analysed above. In particular, 
the constitutional norms of the mentioned countries 
consistently implement the principle of independence 
and impartiality of judges as the main principle 
of administration of justice in domestic judicial 
proceedings, which determines the content of legal 
responsibility of such officials. At the same time, the 
scientific approach is correct, according to which the 
inclusion of such normative material in constitutional 
provisions is a significant factor in observing the  
rights of citizens to the protection of their rights and 
freedoms by an independent court (Pivovar, 2014).



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

71

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 
Within the framework of Chapter VIII "Judiciary" 

of the Constitution of Ukraine, the independence 
of the judiciary is regulated in the context of  
1) the normalisation of the essence of this principle 
of justice together with the immunity of the judge  
(Art. 126); 2) the manifestation of this category  
together with the rule of law in the process of 
administration of justice through its corresponding 
basic principles (Art. 129); 3) the powers of the High 
Judicial Council, which is entrusted with the functions 
of ensuring the independence of judges (Art. 131). 
In addition, the essence of the independence of the 
court and judges is projected onto the legal status of 
the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (Article 147) and 
its judges (Article 149). The content of Article 126, 
among the means of ensuring the independence and 
immunity of judges, also includes a special mechanism 
for holding such persons accountable and preventing 
them from being held accountable for a judicial  
decision taken by them, except for the commission of 
a crime or disciplinary offence (The Constitution of 
Ukraine, 1996).

In contrast, the Constitution of the Republic 
of Azerbaijan (The Constitution of Azerbaijan, 
1995) contains the embodiment of the principle of 
independence of courts and judges precisely in the 
context of the separation of powers into legislative, 
executive and judicial branches, each of which is 
independent of the others within the limits of its 
own powers (Article 7). At the same time, unlike 
the Fundamental Law of Ukraine, Article 127 of the 
Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan considers 
the independence of judges along with the basic 
principles and conditions of administration of justice, 
and the essence of their immunity is defined in  
Article 128. At the same time, in the content of 
the first of the above articles, the independence of  
judges is interpreted in terms of the requirements 
reflected in the Recommendations of the Committee  
of Ministers of the Council of Europe No. (94) 12 
"Independence, effectiveness and role of judges",  
which, as mentioned above, is also reflected in 
the framework of Chapter VIII "Judiciary" of the 
Constitution of Ukraine. In addition, unlike the 
Ukrainian legislation, the Azerbaijani legislation  
extends the above-mentioned provisions of Article 
10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
and Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection 
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with 
regard to a comprehensive approach to the perception 
of the categories of independence and impartiality as 
a component of the legal personality of the court and 
the judge and the sign of justice as a corresponding 
procedural activity. Among the structural elements  
of the implementation of the principle of the 
independence of judges in the field of guaranteeing  
their inviolability, the above-mentioned article  

identifies a special model of criminal liability of these 
officials, with clear limits and a strictly formalised 
procedure within the framework of a special law.

The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Courts 
and Judges (1997) should be recognised as one that 
continues the introduction of legal certainty in the 
implementation of the content of the independence 
of judges in the Republic of Azerbaijan, which,  
in addition to general provisions, also identifies 
special provisions that determine the essence of the 
independence of both courts in general and judges 
directly, who are the bearers of judicial power in this 
state. Among the general provisions, the following 
are particularly noteworthy: 1) ensuring the 
implementation of the content of the constitutional 
norms on the independence of the judiciary as the 
main characteristic of the judiciary in the structure of 
the distribution of all branches of public power and as 
the defining characteristic of the judiciary (Preamble); 
2) the interrelation between the judiciary and the 
corresponding legal status of judges, provided that the 
latter are independent (Article 8); 3) the separation 
of the courts as a different form of legal entity under 
public law from other similar entities as a component 
of the content of their independence (Article 19); 
4) the creation of conditions for the organisational 
support of the independence of judges (Article 86); 
5) the inclusion in the content of the legal status of 
judges of the obligations to preserve and protect the 
independence and dignity of judges (Article 95);  
6) the inclusion in the list of the rights of judges  
of the right to independence (Article 98). Specific 
rules for the implementation of the independence of 
the judiciary are laid down in Art. 100, which define 
the content of the manifestation of independence as 
depoliticisation, immutability and inviolability for 
the duration of the exercise of powers, restrictions on 
appointment to another post, on accountability, on 
deprivation of powers and on removal from office, 
the independence of the functioning of the judiciary  
and of the procedure for the administration of justice 
provided for by law, the inadmissibility of establishing 
restrictions and interference in judicial proceedings, 
ensuring the personal security of judges and providing 
material and social guarantees. As demonstrated in 
Article 122, the aforementioned essential manifestations 
of independence are also projected on jurors.  
The purpose of this is to ensure the achievement of 
a single result of justice, namely the adoption of a fair 
and impartial decision on the relevant case.

The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan merits 
particular attention with respect to the particulars 
of implementing the content of the immunity of  
judges. This is achieved by introducing a special 
procedure and grounds for removing a judge from 
office and holding him accountable. In addition, the law  
defines a clear model for holding judges accountable, 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

72

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024
involving the Judicial and Legal Council and based on 
the decision of the Prosecutor General of the Republic 
of Azerbaijan (Article 101). It is also important to note 
the special regulation within the framework of the 
regulatory legal act in question, which deals with the 
issue of bringing judges to disciplinary liability. This 
regulation reflects the issue of the range of reasons 
preceding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings 
against a judge (Article 111), an exhaustive list of 
grounds for bringing this type of legal liability (Article 
111-1), and the procedure for bringing it to liability 
(Article 112). The latter ensures the legitimisation of 
the relevant entity (the Judicial and Legal Council) 
which initiates disciplinary proceedings against 
a judge, as well as its powers. The special legal regime 
of the Judicial and Legal Council is clearly regulated  
in the provisions of the Law of the Republic of  
Azerbaijan on the Judicial and Legal Council (Law of 
the Republic of Azerbaijan on the Judicial and Legal 
Council, 2004). This Law essentially establishes an 
institution of social compromise that influences the 
judiciary by society, in combination with the design  
of ensuring the immunity of judges.

Within the Ukrainian legal field, a comparable 
regulatory act is constituted by the Law of Ukraine 
"On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges"  
(The Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status 
of Judges", 2016). Within this framework, general 
provisions on the independence of the court and the 
judges are contained in Art. 1 (on the independence 
and impartiality of the courts), Art. 6 (concerning the 
content of the independence of the courts, in particular 
with regard to relations with other public authorities), 
Art. 7 (as regards the implementation of the content  
of the right to a fair trial). Concurrently, specific  
provisions concerning the essence of independence as 
a defining feature of the legal status of judges are replicated 
within numerous legal provisions of this statute. Hence, 
Article 48 lists among its substantive components:  
1) the procedure for appointment, prosecution, dismissal  
and termination of powers of a judge; 2) his/her 
immunity and immunity; 3) irremovability of a judge;  
4) the procedure for administration of justice  
determined by the procedural law, secrecy of court 
decisions; 5) prohibition of interference in the 
administration of justice; 6) liability for contempt of 
court or judge; 7) separate procedure for financing 
and organisational support of courts established by 
law; 8) proper material and social security of judges;  
9) functioning of judicial governance and self-
government bodies; 10) means of ensuring personal 
security of judges, their family members, property, 
as well as other means of their legal protection as 
defined by law; 11) the right of a judge to resign;  
12) establishment of the obligation of other participants 
in public relations to respect the independence of 
judges and not to encroach on it; 13) inadmissibility 

of narrowing the content and scope of guarantees 
of judicial independence as defined by the current 
legislation. At the same time, Article 52 defines the 
establishment of independence as a component of the 
legal status of a judge in terms of the respective type of 
judicial proceedings or administrative position held by 
a judge, Article 57 imposes on a judge the obligation 
to administer justice independently when taking the 
oath, Article 69 imposes on a judge the requirement 
of independence in the administration of justice,  
Article 69 establishes the requirement of independence 
for a candidate for the position of a judge.  
Articles 126, 129, 133 reveal the essence of judicial 
self-government as one of the guarantees of judicial 
independence, while Article 146 creates material 
and financial prerequisites for ensuring judicial 
independence.

It is necessary to take into account the fact that the 
Ukrainian legislation in the content of the analysed 
regulatory and legal acts clearly delimits the features 
of bringing the judge to responsibility in relation to 
his professional activity and for committing an offence 
outside it, which mediates the implementation of the 
content of the immunity and inviolability of the judge 
(Article 49). Simultaneously, the initial category of 
infractions encompasses both criminal and disciplinary 
culpability. The subsequent category encompasses 
criminal or administrative culpability, with a  
substantial emphasis placed on the conduct of entities 
such as the High Council of Justice and the Prosecutor 
General of Ukraine. The High Council of Justice in 
Ukraine, as an autonomous constitutional body of 
state power and judicial self-government, operates in 
accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On the High 
Council of Justice" and establishes a procedure for 
bringing judges to one or another type of legal liability, 
thereby creating a compromise option for combining 
the construction of the independence of judges and 
bringing them to responsibility (The Law of Ukraine 
“On the High Council of Justice”, 2016).

A review of the extant scientific research on the 
national legal regime of judicial responsibility  
reveals the following achievements. A thorough  
analysis of the legal framework governing judicial 
responsibility in Poland reveals that a singular model 
of disciplinary liability for judges is conspicuously  
absent. Concurrently, the distinctive constitutional 
provision of irremovability of judges constitutes 
a pivotal prerequisite for differentiating the legal status 
of this category of officials from other professions.  
In the context of the study of the legal status of a judge 
of the Constitutional Court of Poland, particular 
attention is paid to the responsibility of such a person 
before a special body from the point of view of the 
international standards expressed above regarding 
the instance-subject side of such a process. However, 
given the independence of the Constitutional Court,  



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

73

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 
an exception is made, according to which the 
Constitutional Court itself directly makes decisions 
on disciplinary proceedings against its judges. The 
model of the two-instance procedure for disciplinary  
proceedings against judges of the Constitutional Court, 
which has been formulated, provides for achieving 
a balance between the guarantees of the person on 
the part of the judge regarding the administration of  
justice and the concept of the structure of the judicial 
power that takes place in a given country (Zubik, 
Wiacek, 2007).

The scientific position regarding the separate  
opinions of judges that take place in the appellate  
instance is correct. It is proposed that the fact that 
a separate opinion of a judge under such circumstances 
entails individual responsibility of judges and 
demonstrates the transparency of the procedure 
for collegial adoption of a judicial decision be  
recognised (Hogg, Amarnath, 2017). Moreover, the 
possibility for a judge to express a separate opinion 
indicates the existence of his own judgement,  
which is not subject to a certain collegial principle,  
which reflects the basic principles of judicial  
proceedings in the sphere of the implementation  
of the rule of law.

The study of the procedure for disciplining  
judges in the Chilean legal system is quite critical. 
Attention is drawn to the inconsistencies of the 
existing procedure with international standards and 
constitutional provisions, in that the main functions 
of the procedure are vested in the country's Supreme 
Court, rather than in a special independent body.  
In this context, the author believes that the leveling  
of the constitutional guarantee of the independence of 
judges is clearly visible, as well as the lack of compliance 
with the formal and substantive content of the  
procedure for disciplinary proceedings against judges, 
which results in the need for appropriate legislative 
changes (Bordalí, 2018).

The study of national legal mechanisms for the  
liability of judges in the legislation of Azerbaijan, 
Ukraine and some other countries has made it 
possible to identify the main factors ensuring the 
independence of the judiciary and judges as its 
representatives. Attention is drawn to the features of 
the liability of judges, in particular disciplinary liability.  
The peculiarities of the procedure for bringing a  
judge to disciplinary responsibility are highlighted, 
as well as the correlation between the rights of a  
judge as a person entitled to protection and the concept 
of the judiciary with the relevant public functions, 
primarily justice.    

5. Conclusions
The study of international and national legal 

mechanisms of judicial responsibility in the conditions 

of economic globalisation of modern society has led to 
the following conclusions.

This issue has been the subject of research by 
representatives of the state administration, socio-legal 
and socio-economic sciences, which demonstrates its 
complexity and ambiguity.

In world practice, there are functional indicators  
of the activity of the judiciary, which converge 
in combination with economic indicators of the 
population's well-being, conditions for starting 
one's own business, ensuring financial and banking  
stability, GDP growth, the level of development of 
relevant sectors of industry and the economic sphere 
as a whole, and so on. Among the indicators that reflect 
the performance of all three branches of government 
are the following: the Government Effectiveness 
Index – executive branch, the Legislative Quality 
Index – legislative branch, and the Rule of Law Index – 
judicial branch. The empirical study shows that there is 
a direct relationship between the indices of economic 
development and the rule of law, since, under certain 
conditions, the latter guarantees the harmony of 
existence of all the cells of society and creates conditions 
that prevent the emergence of existential threats  
to the national interests of the state, including the 
protection of human rights and freedoms.

The study of international legal documents, the 
jurisprudence of international courts and academic 
research has established international standards 
for the mechanism of disciplining judges. These 
include: 1) a special procedure for bringing a judge 
to disciplinary responsibility, which is defined by law;  
2) the establishment of an independent body to  
consider such cases; 3) the guarantee of the right  
of a judge to participate directly or through 
a representative in such proceedings, to exercise 
his right of defence and to express his opinion;  
4) the right to appeal against the decision taken 
on the basis of the results of this procedure;  
5) the exhaustiveness of the sanctions that can be 
applied and their proportionality.

It has been established that the establishment of 
international standards on the issue of bringing judges 
to disciplinary liability occurs through two channels: 
firstly, the regulatory provisions of international 
regulatory legal acts and secondly, the judicial practice 
of international courts, in the area of mandatory and 
recommended application.

A conclusion is made on the implementation of 
the stated provisions of international legislation on 
the liability of judges to the national legal system 
of Azerbaijan, Ukraine and some other countries. 
A scientific approach is advocated for the constitutional 
and legal formation of means of implementing the 
immunity of judges through the establishment of 
a special legal regime for bringing them to liability. 
Simultaneously, it has been demonstrated that the 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

74

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024
direct continuation of European legislation within the 
Republic of Azerbaijan is indicative of a comprehensive 
understanding of the categories of independence 
and impartiality as integral components of the legal 
personality of the court and judge. Furthermore, it is 
evident that the signs of justice are considered to be 
a corresponding procedural activity.

In the context of special legislation that delineates 
the legal status of judges, the framework distinguishes 
between general and special legal regimes for the 
implementation of the content of judicial independence. 
It also explores the correlation between these 
regimes and the essence of the immunity of judges. 
Furthermore, it provides a definition of the formal 
and substantive elements of the procedure for holding  

the aforementioned officials legally liable. In the 
context of the national legal regimes of the countries 
under consideration, the features of holding judges 
liable in view of their professional activities and for 
committing offences outside of them are determined. 
These features mediate the implementation of the 
content of immunity and immunity of such officials. 
The procedure for holding judges criminally and 
disciplinarily liable is distinct. The reasons, grounds, 
procedure and subjects of the aforementioned 
proceedings are determined. This indicates the special 
status of bodies that ensure the achievement of a social 
compromise in influencing the judiciary by society,  
in combination with the construction of ensuring the 
immunity of judges.

References:
Rikhter, V. V. (2020). Public Administration Independence of Judges in Ukraine. Legal science, Vol. 4(106),  
No. 2, p. 146–151.
Pivovar, I. V. (2014). Independence of Judges in the Context of Modern Legal Reforms. Scientific Bulletin of the 
International Humanitarian University. Series: Jurisprudence, Vol. 1 (10-1), p. 46–48. 
Berch, V. V., Belov, D. M., & Bysaha, Y. M. (2023). Independence of Judges in the Context of Modern Legal  
Reforms. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Series: Law, Vol. 80(1), p. 102–106.
Uygur, G., & Gürgey, FIC (2022). 'Improve the Law' as a Judicial Duty on the Borderlines of Free Speech:  
Judges as Responsible Epistemic Agents. Krytyka Prawa-Niezalezne Studia nad Prawem, Vol. 14(4), p. 60–73.
Sánchez, ABB (2009). The Judiciary, Accountability, and Transition to Democracy in Spain. Foro Internacional,  
Vol. 49(4), p. 163–179.
Lawton, F. (1968). The role and responsibility of the judge. Medicine, Science, and the Law, Vol. 8(4), p. 243–248.
Santos, F. (2018). The Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges and Magistrates in Spain and Italy. Revista General de 
Derecho Publico Comparado, Vol. 23, p. 243–248.
Nikitin, S. (2014). Appointment of Judges and Legal Responsibility of Judges  Guarantees of Independence in 
Russia. Culture of Judicial Independence: Rule of Law and World Peace, p. 411–418.
Kinski, L., Fromage, D., & Blauberger, M. (2024). Responsible judges or judging responsibilities? EU Court of 
Justice,  Bundesverfassungsgericht  and EU economic governance. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 31(4),  
p. 1051–1074.
Flores Calvo, G. E. (2020). Judicial Accountability as External Control of the Decisions of the Supreme Court in 
the Chilean Legal Culture (PhD Thesis), Santiago: Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile.
Moufleh, YAA, Thneibat, MJM. (2017). The Disciplinary Responsibility for the Judge Pursuant to Law Jordanian 
Independence the Judgment. Journal of Law and Political Sciences, Vol. 14(2).
Ovcharenko, O. M. (2018). Legal responsibility of judges: issues of theory and practice. (Doctoral Dissertation). 
Odesa: National University "Odessa Law Academy". 
Akhundova, K. (2024). Peculiarities of ensuring the responsibility and independence of judges in the  
administration of justice (on the example of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ukraine and the Republic of Poland). 
South Ukrainian Law Journal, Vol. 2, p. 3–9.
Germak, K. O. (2024). Disciplinary responsibility of magistrates in the modern legal system: procedural aspects. 
Analytical and comparative jurisprudence, Vol. 4, p. 669–673. 
Bondarchuk, R. A. (2021). Administrative and legal regulation of the procedure for bringing a judge to disciplinary 
responsibility (PhD Dissertation). Zaporizhzhia: Zaporizkyi natsionalnyi universytet.
Salenko, O. (2014). International standards in the field of judicial system and status of judges, their content and 
classification. National Legal Journal: Theory and Practice, June 2014, p. 263–269.
Indicators.GlobalEconomy.com (2024). The Indicators.GlobalEconomy.com. Available at:  
https://ru.theglobaleconomy.com/indicators_list.php 
Rankings.GlobalEconomy.com (2024). The Rankings.GlobalEconomy.com. Available at:  
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/wb_ruleoflaw/ 
Comparator.GlobalEconomy.com (2024). The Comparator.GlobalEconomy.com. Available at:  
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/compare-countries/
Abdulmumin, Z. (2017). Factors Developing Countries Can Consider to Achieve Developed Economy Status 
(PhD Thesis), California Southern University.
Zhan, Y. L. (2010). The Administrative Performance Evaluation Study of the Weights to Strengthen the Rule of 
Law (PhD Thesis), Hunan Normal University (People's Republic of China).



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

75

Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 
Lane, JE (2011). Law and economics in the ASEAN +3 region: the rule of law deficit. International Journal  
of Social Economics, Vol. 38(10), p. 847–857.
Yang, J. (2012). On Relationship between Rule of Law and Economic Growth. Korean Corruption Studies Review, 
Vol. 17(4), p. 81–105.
Shevchuk, V. O., Blikhar, M. M., Komarnytska, I. I., & Tataryn, N. M. (2020). Rule of Law and Economic  
Growth. Financial and Credit Activity-Problems of Theory and Practice, Vol. 1(32), p. 278–289.
Sill, K. L. (2010). Institutional Design and the Economy: Disentangling the Effects of Judicial Independence 
and Judicial Review on Economic Development (PhD Thesis), Louisiana State University and Agricultural & 
Mechanical College.
Liu, X. K. (2011). The realization of judicial independence in taiwan and its implications on the mainland (PhD 
Thesis), Huazhong Normal University (People's Republic of China).
Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985). 
Recommendation №. R (94) 12 (1994). Recommendation №. R (94) 12 to Member States on the Independence, 
Efficiency and Role of Judges. 
Council of Europe (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Denysova, A. V., Blaga, A. B., Makovii, V. P., Kaliuzhna, Y. S. (2022). The Right to a Fair Trial: the ECtHR  
Case-Law and Its Implementation the Ukrainian Judiciary. Prawo i Więż, Vol. 40, p. 109–127.
European Charter (1998). European Charter on the Status of Judges.
Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2006). The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.
Kryzhanovskyi, V. Y. (2011). International Standards of Judicial Protection of Human Rights and Their 
Implementation in the System of Legal Protection in Ukraine. Current policy issues, Vol. 42, p. 116–123. 
Babenko, H. O. (2021). European standards of the judiciary and the status of judges. Analytical and comparative 
jurisprudence, Vol. 4, p. 353–356. 
Makovii, V., Kuznichenko, O., & Budyachenko, O. (2022). Status and prospects of the execution of judgments of 
the European Court Of Human Rights in Ukraine. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 8 (3), p. 115–124.
Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights in the case of "X. v. Austria" (1982). The decision of the 
European Commission of Human Rights 06 October 1982 in the case of “X. v. Austria” on the inadmissibility of 
the application № 9295/81.
Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights in the case of "C. v. the United Kingdom" (1987).  
The decision of the European Commission of Human Rights of 07 October 1987 in the case of "C. v. the United 
Kingdom" on the inadmissibility of application № 11882/85.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of "Ringvold v. Norway" (2003). Decision of the 
European Court of Human Rights of 11 February 2003 in the case of "Ringvold v. Norway" of the application  
№ 34964/97.
Sulaymanov, O. R. (2021). Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges: the International Standards and the National 
Legislation of Uzbekistan. Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal, Vol. 1(7), p. 1–13.
Romboli, R. (2022). Responsibility of the Judges, Jurisprudential Law and Legitimation of the Judicial Power in 
the Democratic State. Revista de Estudios Politicos, Vol. 198, p. 153–185.
Constitution of Ukraine (1996). The Constitution of Ukraine. Available at: http://surl.li/ykhqcb
The Constitution of Azerbaijan (1995). The Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Available at:  
https://president.az/en/pages/view/azerbaijan/constitution 
The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Courts and Judges (1997). The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on 
Courts and Judges. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/ct-legislation-azerbaijan-courts-and-judges/16806415cb
The Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the Judicial and Legal Council (2004). The Law of the Republic of 
Azerbaijan on the Judicial and Legal Council. Available at: https://legislationline.org/sites/default/files/
documents/73/Azerbaijan_law_judicial_legal%20council_2004_am2014_en.pdf
The Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges" (2016). The Official Bulletin of the Verkhovna 
Rada of Ukraine (BVR), 2016. Available at: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.
aspx?pdffile=CDL-REF(2021)080-e
The Law of Ukraine "On the High Council of Justice" (2016). The Official Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of 
Ukraine (BVR), 2016. Available at: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-
REF(2020)067
Zubik, M., Wiacek, M. (2007). "On Controversial Issues concerning the Scope of Disciplinary Responsibility of 
the Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal" – A Polemic. Przeglad Sejmowy, Vol. 3, p. 69–84.
Hogg, P., & Amarnath, R. (2017). Why Judges Should Dissent. University Of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 67(2),  
p. 126–141.
Bordalí, S. A. (2018). The unconstitutionality of the disciplinary regime of judges in Chile. Ius et Praxis, Vol. 24(2), 
p. 513–548.

Received on: 05th of October, 2024
Accepted on: 23th of November, 2024
Published on: 30th of December, 2024