Die Grenzen anwaltlicher Justizkritik …

… hat die Grosse Kammer des EGMR in MORICE v. FRANCE (EGMR Nr. 29369/10 vom 23.04.2015) wieder etwas zurechtgerückt (vgl. dazu den Beitrag von Verfassungsblog). Sie erkennt in der Verurteilung eines justizkritischen Anwalts u.a. eine Verletzung von Art. 10 EMRK. Der Entscheid erging einstimmig.

Weniger erfreulich ist, was man in der Begründung liest, die sich zur Stellung und zur Rolle von Anwälten äussert und sie zu Dienern nicht etwa des Rechts (damit könnte man noch knapp leben), sondern der Justiz (damit nicht) zu reduzieren scheint:

The specific status of lawyers gives them a central position in the administration of justice as intermediaries between the public and the courts. They therefore play a key role in ensuring that the courts, whose mission is fundamental in a State based on the rule of law, enjoy public confidence (see Schöpfer v. Switzerland, 20 May 1998, §§ 29-30, Reports 1998-III; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 45, ECHR 2002-II; Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-III; Kyprianou, cited above, § 173; André and Another v. France, no. 18603/03, § 42, 24 July 2008; and Mor, cited above, § 42). However, for members of the public to have confidence in the administration of justice they must have confidence in the ability of the legal profession to provide effective representation (see Kyprianou, cited above, § 175) [N 132].

Gut zu wissen, dass es auch Richter in Strassburg gibt, welche sich schon etwas weiter von der Inquisition entfernt haben. Aus der Concurring Opinion von Richter Küris:

A lawyer always represents a party and by definition is not able to occupy “a central position in the administration of justice”. A party is never “central”, nor can its representative be. Those with a “central position in the administration of justice” are the judges (for good or, as is unfortunately sometimes the case, for bad). The “intermediaries between the public and the courts” are the courts’ spokespersons, press representatives or – in their own right – journalists, but in no way lawyers, who represent parties. A lawyer acts in a party’s interests, for the benefit of a client and, as a rule, is remunerated by the latter. A lawyer has to heed the represented party’s interests even when they are in opposition to those of “the public”, i.e. society and the State. This is not meant to deny or diminish the importance of the function of lawyers. It is true that they can and do contribute to seeking justice and help courts to exercise their mission, but lawyers may also aim at obstructing the pursuit of justice in the interests of their clients – and occasionally do so. It depends. A party represented by a lawyer may find himself or herself in the courtroom because he or she seeks justice, but it is probably no less frequent for the lawyer to represent a party against whom justice is sought [N 3].

Mein Dank geht nach Litauen.