The Collège de déontologie des magistrats released an opinion dated 18 September, addressing a magistrate’s public political activity and his role in a legal-rights association. The document was made public today.

Complaint lodged by an appellate court

On 29 August, a First President of a French court of appeal emailed the College, asking it to review the conduct of a criminal-court magistrate identified as [A]. The magistrate had presented himself in national media as a co-founder of association [Y], which describes its mission as “strategic contentious actions” to give a voice to “those no longer heard” and to hold the state accountable for serious failures.

The appellant questioned whether [A]’s regular media appearances and declared political stance were compatible with his judicial duties. He noted that colleagues, other magistrates’ unions and lawyers were already expressing doubts about his ability to remain impartial while maintaining a visible political profile.

College’s assessment of duty of reserve

After reviewing the two submissions, the College concluded that [A] breached the duty of reserve expected of judges. It stated that his public advocacy, even when conveyed indirectly, “appears to contravene his duty of reserve.”

The body highlighted that the association’s partisan nature could damage the public’s perception of the judiciary. It added that frequent media statements and the magistrate’s self-identification as a judge “raise questions among judicial actors about the compatibility of his political notoriety with his functions.”

According to the opinion, participation in [Y] and the public promotion of its activities “undermine at least the appearance of impartiality and may harm the image of justice.”

Prior disciplinary history

The magistrate had previously been sanctioned by the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature for tweets deemed overly aggressive on political topics.

Magistrate’s response and broader concerns

After receiving the College’s notice, [A] filed a request for review, emphasizing his membership on the scientific council of [Y] and asserting that he holds no leadership position. He also pointed to perceived double standards, noting that a leader of a rival, left-leaning union who serves on a similarly political scientific council has not faced comparable criticism.

He quoted a colleague, saying that when a counterpart from another union appears on a politically marked scientific council, “it does not seem to pose a problem, nor when prominent members publicly support presidential campaigns.” The magistrate argued that his own situation should be judged consistently.

The College’s opinion remains anonymous, but the identities of the magistrate and the association are readily deduced from the details provided. The document reiterates that any public engagement that could be seen as partisan must be weighed against the core principle of judicial impartiality.