Poland
The Case of the Judge Who Sent Controversial Twitter Posts
Decision Date: May 16, 2019
The Polish Supreme Court - Disciplinary Chamber found that a judge did not anticipate that an explicit statement on Twitter would reverberate in the public discourse when he should have done so. The judge had compared a well-known politician to Adolf Hitler, using a judges’ association's Twitter account. The Court emphasized that the tweet had a wider impact than just the profile’s followers because of the ability of social network to copy, forward or share a particular message. The Court also held that in the case of a judge, freedom of expression is subject to additional, specific restrictions, which also apply to activities outside a courtroom. The Court found that the tweet caused general damage to the image of judges and compromised their impartiality, and the judge had therefore undermined the dignity of his office and committed a disciplinary offense, and the Court imposed a disciplinary penalty of caution.
 
The Case of the Judge Who Sent Abusive Emails
Decision Date: September 30, 2016
The Polish Supreme Court – Disciplinary Court held that the high standards of judicial expression also apply to private electronic communications. A judge had sent abusive emails to his ex-wife and son, containing rude and derogatory remarks and the ex-wife – herself a judge –  initiated proceedings before the disciplinary jurisdiction. The Court analysed the national and regional standards on privacy and the right to communicate, concluding that they must, however, be balanced with the need to ensure high standards of judicial conduct. The Court found that the judge had undermined the judicial office and so had committed a minor disciplinary offence but also found mitigating factors which justified the conclusion that the penalty be waived.

European Court of Human Rights
Tuskia v. Georgia
Decision Date: October 11, 2018
The Fifth Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Georgia did not violate the petitioners’ right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, read in conjunction with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10, by dispersing the protest held at Tbilisi State University on 3 July 2006 and imposing subsequent fines on demonstrators. The petitioners were a group of professors at the university who were opposed to several university reforms implemented by the rector, Mr G.Kh, and organized several protests in 2006. On 3 July 2006, the petitioners staged a massive protest at the university and entered the office of the rector in an attempt to remove him from office. The police negotiated for two hours with the petitioners to disperse the protest in the rector's office, who agreed to leave without disturbance. Following administrative proceedings, the petitioners were fined approximately 45 Euros for the administrative offenses of resisting arrest and disturbing the public order. The petitioners claimed that the dispersal of their protest and the fines imposed by the state of Georgia violated their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The state, for its part, argued that these rights were not unlimited and that the petitioners had committed administrative offenses by disrupting the normal functioning of the university and by refusing to vacate the rector’s office for two hours. The ECtHR found that Georgia had interfered with the petitioners’ right to assembly by dispersing the protest and fining them. However, it also found that such a restriction was lawful and pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining public order and the normal functioning of the university. The ECtHR held that the measures were necessary in a democratic society in order to preserve the functioning of the university and noted that the state had not used force and had been tolerant of various protests carried out by the petitioners, even allowing them to protest inside the university after they had left the rector’s office.