Differentiation of grounds for disciplinary liability of judges

Abstract

The article focuses on the distinction between the grounds for disciplinary liability of judges. It is noted that the main reason for different qualification of similar violations of judges is a large number of evaluative concepts among the grounds for disciplinary liability. The corpus delicti of judicial misconduct have a large number of similar features in terms of content, and therefore the practice of their application is complex and controversial. The issue of distinguishing between the elements of disciplinary misconduct requires special attention, since the severity of the type of penalty chosen by a judge depends on the accuracy of the disciplinary and legal qualification. The author emphasizes that the reasons for the problem of distinguishing the grounds for disciplinary liability of judges are their broad formulations at the legislative level, a large number of evaluative concepts and an increase in the number of related corpus delicti over the past decades. Examples from disciplinary practice show that there are no uniform approaches to the qualification of disciplinary offenses related to procedural violations of judges in the administration of justice. In some cases, similar procedural violations are qualified only on one ground, in some cases – on another ground, and in others – on several grounds. Different disciplinary and legal qualifications of similar judicial misconduct lead to different disciplinary sanctions. The author emphasizes that it is important not only to identify consistent legal positions on the disciplinary and legal qualification of judicial misconduct, but also to offer future disciplinary inspectors a certain standard algorithm of actions and methodology for qualifying judicial misconduct during an inspection. In order to avoid criticism and accusations of double standards, it is important to develop and put them into practice. Key words: disciplinary liability of judges, grounds for disciplinary liability, disciplinary offenses, disciplinary sanctions, qualification of violations..