Balancing judicial apoliticism and the right to freedom of speech – a critical analysis of ECHR Judgement no. 16915/21

In recent years, the issue of judges' freedom of expression in the context of their independence and role in a democratic state has attracted increasing interest from scholars and legal practitioners. Referring to the ongoing discussion in the literature, this article analyzes the boundaries of this freedom, drawing on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, with particular emphasis on the case of Danileţ v. Romania. The aim of this article is to examine the boundaries of judges' freedom of expression within the framework of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. The study combines literature review, analysis of legal frameworks as well as critical doctrinal analysis to comprehensively analyse the ECHR's position in relation to legal norms and relevant literature. A critical assessment of the impact of these rulings on the redefinition of the relationship between judicial independence and judges' right to participate in public debate is conducted.