Judicial Immunity: The Balance between Independence and Responsibility (A Comparative Analysis)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.1.2026.11894Keywords:
judicial immunity, independence, responsibility.Abstract
This article examines the institution of judicial immunity, with particular emphasis on its legal nature, function and scope, as well as the doctrinal and practical problems that arise in striking a balance between judicial independence and responsibility. Although mechanisms safeguarding judicial independence and protection are established in legislation, institutional challenges remain evident in practice, particularly as regards maintaining the balance between independence and accountability.
Using a comparative legal methodology, the article analyses the German criminal-law model as a system characterised by a high level of institutional protection, in which judicial immunity and liability are strictly regulated. Particular attention is paid to the relevant practice, which clearly illustrates the high threshold for holding judges liable and the limited application of such liability in practice.
References
1. Zoidze B., Several Sketches of an Independent Judge, Anniversary Collection Dedicated to the 75th Birthday of Tengiz Liluashvili, Tbilisi, 2003 (in Georgian).
2. Tumanishvili G., Criminal Law Procedure: Overview of the General Part, Tbilisi, 2014 (in Georgian).
3. Organic Law of Georgia on Common Courts, 4 December 2009.
4. High Council of Justice of Georgia, Rules of Judicial Ethics of Georgia, <https://hcoj.gov.ge/> [01.05.2026] (in Georgian).
5. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of 18 April 2011 in Case No. 2/482,483,487,502.
6. Ruling of the Chamber of the Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of Georgia, 10 June 2021, Case No. 1ag-21.
7. Schmidt S., Richter H., The Process of Judicial Decision-Making in Civil Law, Tbilisi, 2013 (in Georgian).
8. Encyclopædia Britannica, Judicial Independence, <https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-independence> [01.05.2026].
9. 2021 Discussion on the ongoing reform within the framework of the 2021 Conference of Ministers of Justice, <https://www.justiz.de> [07.08.2025].
10. Bäcker M., Die politische Unabhängigkeit der Justiz – Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 2019, 2432-2436.
11. Bäcker M., Rechtsstaat und Verantwortung der Justiz, JuristenZeitung, 2020, 865-871.
12. Adenitire J., Judicial Independence in Europe: The Swedish, Italian and German Perspectives, 2012.
13. Terry P. C. R., Judicial Independence in Germany within the European Context, Theoretical and Applied Law, Vol. 3, 2019, 5-8, <https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-103274-8> [19.06.2026].
14. Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region, adopted at the 6th Conference of Chief Justices, Beijing, August 1997.
15. Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 16 June 1956 – 1 StR 50/56, BGHSt 9, 302.
16. Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 19 June 1997 – 3 StR 104/97, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1997, 3317.
17. Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 19 June 1997 – III ZR 142/96, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1997, 3317.
18. BVerfG, Judgment of 19 September 1979 – 2 BvR 154/76, BVerfGE 52, 131.
19. BVerfGE 3, 377.
20. BVerfGE 9, 268.
21. BVerfGE 14, 56.
22. BVerfGE 27, 312.
23. BVerfGE 39, 334.
24. BVerfG, Judgment of 14 July 1999 – 2 BvR 1123/96, BVerfGE 100, 313.
25. BVerfG, Judgment of 19 September 2006 – 2 BvR 1012/01, BVerfGE 116, 24.
26. BVerfG, Decision of 20 December 2017 – 1 BvR 2795/09, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 2018, 1009.
27. United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1994/41 on Independence and Impartiality of the Judiciary, Jurors and Assessors and the Independence of Lawyers, adopted at the 55th meeting of the Commission on 4 March 1994.
28. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, adopted on 17 November 2010 at the 1098th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
29. Consultative Council of European Judges, Opinion No. 3 (2002) to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Principles and Rules Governing Judges’ Professional Conduct, in Particular Ethics, Incompatible Behaviour and Impartiality.
30. Consultative Council of European Judges, Magna Carta of Judges (Fundamental Principles), 2010.
31. Council of Europe, European Charter on the Status of Judges, 1998.
32. Deutsches Richtergesetz, BGBl. I 1961, 981, last amended by Article 4 of the Law of 22 December 2023, BGBl. I No. 411.
33. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
34. Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz.
35. German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung – StPO), <https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo> [18.06.2026].
36. German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB).
37. German Judiciary Act (Deutsches Richtergesetz – DRiG), <https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/drig> [18.06.2026].
38. European Commission, Association Implementation Report on Georgia, 2024.
39. European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Report on the Independence of the Judicial System – Part I: The Independence of Judges, CDL-AD(2010)004.
40. European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Organic Law on Common Courts, CDL-AD(2022)012.
41. European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion on the Law on Disciplinary Responsibility and Disciplinary Prosecution of Judges of Common Courts of Georgia, CDL-AD(2007)009, Opinion No. 408/2006, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 70th Plenary Session, Venice, 16-17 March 2007.
42. Findlay v. the United Kingdom, application no. 22107/93, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 February 1997.
43. Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland, application no. 23614/08, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 30 November 2010.
44. Moiseyev v. Russia, application no. 62936/00, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 October 2008.
45. Parlov-Tkalčić v. Croatia, application no. 24810/06, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 22 December 2009.
46. Şahiner v. Turkey, application no. 29279/95, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 September 2001.
47. Incal v. Turkey [GC], application no. 22678/93, judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 June 1998.
48. Baka v. Hungary [GC], application no. 20261/12, judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of 23 June 2016.
49. Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], application no. 73797/01, judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of 15 December 2005.
50. Holm v. Sweden, application no. 14191/88, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 November 1993.
51. X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7215/75, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 5 November 1981.
52. Golder v. the United Kingdom [Plenary], application no. 4451/70, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 February 1975.
53. European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, Judicial Ethics Report 2009-2010, <https://encj.eu/images/stories/pdf/ethics/judicialethicsdeontologiefinal.pdf> [18.06.2026].
54. Fischer T., Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze, 72nd ed., 2025.
55. Fischer T., Strafgesetzbuch, 71st ed., 2024.
56. Gray C., The Line Between Legal Error and Judicial Misconduct: Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability, Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 32, Issue 4, 2004.
57. Härtel I., Grundzüge des Staatsrechts, Springer, 2020.
58. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 5 August 2008, Series C No. 182.
59. International Commission of Jurists, International Principles on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors, Practitioners’ Guide No. 1, Geneva, 2007.
60. Kintzi H., in: Schmidt-Räntsch J. (ed.), Deutsches Richtergesetz, 7th ed., 2020.
61. Kreth E., Die richterliche Unabhängigkeit: Wahrung einer sich nicht selbst erfüllenden Aufgabe, Deutsche Richterzeitung, 2009.
62. Lepsius O., in: von Mangoldt H., Klein F., Starck C. (eds.), Grundgesetz, 7th ed., 2023.
63. Liesching M., Verfassungsrechtliche Bewertung des Weimarer Beschlusses, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, 2021, 678-682.
64. Masing J., in: Dürig G., Herzog R., Scholz R. (eds.), Grundgesetz: Kommentar, 2023.
65. Maurer H., Staatsrecht I, 9th ed., 2021.
66. Maurer H., Staatsrecht I, 7th ed., 2023.
67. Möllers C., Gewaltengliederung, 3rd ed., Tübingen, 2022.
68. Möllers C., Staat als Argument, 2nd ed., Tübingen, 2011.
69. Möstl B., in: Dürig G., Herzog R., Scholz R. (eds.), Grundgesetz: Kommentar, 2023.
70. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights / Max Planck Minerva Research Group on Judicial Independence and Human Rights, Kyiv Recommendations on Judicial Independence in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia – Judicial Administration, Selection and Accountability, Kyiv, 23-25 June 2010, <https://cdn.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/a/3/73487.pdf> [19.06.2026].
71. Papier H.-J., Zur Verantwortung der Richter für ihre Entscheidungen, JuristenZeitung, 2008, 481-488.
72. Pieroth B., Schlink B., Kniesel M., Staatsrecht II, 4th ed., 2022.
73. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, UN Doc. A/HRC/11/41, 24 March 2009.
74. Sachs M. (ed.), Grundgesetz, 10th ed., 2021.
75. Schenke W., Amtshaftung und richterliche Unabhängigkeit – ein Spannungsverhältnis?, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 2014, 89-95.
76. Schmidt-Aßmann E., in: Isensee J., Kirchhof P. (eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts, Vol. III, 3rd ed., 2005.
77. Staatsanwaltschaft Erfurt, Pressemitteilung vom 23 August 2022, <https://justiz.thueringen.de> [01.05.2026].
78. Supreme Court of Washington, In re Hammermaster, 985 P.2d 924, Judgment of 7 October 1999.
79. United Nations General Assembly, Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, endorsed by General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985, 1985.
80. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, 2007.
81. Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Vietnam, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/75/VNM, 2002.
82. Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Uzbekistan, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/71/UZB, 2001.
83. Ayala C., Cachalia A., Cumaraswamy P., Despouy L., Nowak M., Trechsel S., Expert Opinion on International Legal Standards Regarding Judicial Independence for the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Baltazar Garzón v. Spain, <http://www.interights.org/userfiles/Annex_2_Judicial_Independence_filed.pdf> [19.06.2026].
84. Van den Wyngaert C. (ed.), Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community, with Gane C., Kühne H.-H., McAuley F., London/Brussels/Dublin/Edinburgh, 1993.
85. Voßkuhle A., Die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 2015, 1-5.
86. United States Agency for International Development, Guidance for Promoting Judicial Independence and Impartiality, Office of Democracy and Governance, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, 2002.
87. Walter C., in: Dürig G., Herzog R., Scholz R. (eds.), Grundgesetz: Kommentar, July 2024.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
