The article analyzes the key decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in cases against Ukraine in order to implementthe principles of disciplinary liability of judges.Particular attention should be paid not only to the procedural but also to the substantive aspects, as the applicant's dismissal inthe case did not comply with the rule of law. This concerned the disclosure of the content of such grounds for disciplinary liability as"violation of the oath of a judge", the content of which

more »

... s not disclosed by law at the time of the decision to dismiss the applicant.According to the ECtHR, in the context of the institution of disciplinary action, a reasonable approach should be used to assess theaccuracy of the law, as there is an objective need for the objective side of such offenses to be formulated in general terms. At the sametime, the legal role of the judiciary in ensuring the predictability of legislative provisions cannot be underestimated in the systems ofcontinental law. It is these bodies that interpret the exact meaning of the general provisions of the law consistently and eliminate anydoubts about the interpretation. Thus, while recognizing in general the admissibility of the use of general wording in determining thegrounds for disciplinary liability of a judge, the ECtHR stated that legislative uncertainty should be compensated by a law enforcementinterpretation.The analysis of these decisions showed that non-compliance with the generally accepted principles of disciplinary liability inbringing a judge to this type of liability leads to a violation of the provisions of the Convention. At the same time, compliance with therelevant principles should be ensured both in legislative activities on reasonable and clear definition of disciplinary liability and the procedurefor disciplinary proceedings by an independent and impartial body, and in law enforcement activities to provide uncertain legalrequirements.