The emergence of the information society has fundamentally changed the nature of interaction between the judiciary and the public. The mass media, and subsequently bloggers and opinion leaders on social networks, have become active participants in shaping public perception of judicial proceedings and the personal activity of judges. On the one hand, this enhances the transparency of the administration of justice and contributes to the realization of the principle of openness of justice; on the other hand, it creates conditions for information pressure that affects the independence of judges and the stability with which they carry out their professional functions.
In Ukrainian realities, where trust in the judiciary has historically been low, media criticism of judges often takes on an aggressive, personalized, and politicized character. This gives rise to the need for public reflection on the limits of permissible criticism of the courts and on the mechanisms for protecting judges from improper influence.
The Influence of the Mass Media and Bloggers on Judicial Activity
The traditional mass media have historically performed the function of an intermediary between the judiciary and society, informing citizens about the course of judicial proceedings, the content of court decisions, and the general principles of the administration of justice. The work of professional journalists in this field, as a rule, is grounded in the standards of objectivity, balance of opinions, and verification of information, which is intended to minimize the risks of distorting objective reality and of unwarranted interference in the administration of justice.
By contrast, the development of digital platforms and social networks has driven the rapid growth of the role of bloggers and opinion leaders, who are not bound by the requirements of professional journalistic ethics and often operate beyond the limits of editorial responsibility. Quite often they are inclined to disseminate subjective assessments of the activity of judges and courts, frequently based on fragmentary or incomplete information. A distinctive feature of bloggers is their ability to influence public opinion considerably faster and more emotionally than classical media. This is achieved through the use of simplified narratives, the personalization of judicial conflicts, the focusing of attention on individual judges, and appeals to the emotional reactions of the audience. In such an information environment, complex legal arguments, procedural nuances, and the principle of the presumption of a judge's good faith often recede into the background.
As a result, a judge frequently appears in the public space not as a bearer of judicial authority and a guarantor of the administration of justice, but as a "persona" of media discourse, whose activity is subject to emotional evaluation and public condemnation. Such an image of a judge creates the risk of substituting sound legal assessment with social resonance and may foster an atmosphere of distrust toward the judiciary as a whole. This intensifies the threat of information pressure on judges, which is potentially capable of affecting their internal independence and psychological stability in administering justice.
Information Pressure and Public Criticism of Judges
Information pressure on judges manifests itself in the systematic public discussion of cases that have not yet been concluded, the attaching of labels such as "corruption" and "bias," and the dissemination of unverified or distorted information. Such pressure may be accompanied by calls for the disciplinary liability of a judge or for his or her dismissal.
Olena Kibenko, a judge of the Supreme Court sitting in the Commercial Court of Cassation, Олена Кібенко emphasized that good-faith informing can be distinguished from manipulative influence by analyzing compliance with the basic standards of journalism. In particular, one should ascertain whether the positions of both sides of the dispute have been presented, whether the official position of the court has been represented, and whether the author of the material has the appropriate professional specialization. An important criterion is the presence of comments from independent experts, the substantiation of negative assessments with evidence and arguments, and the journalist's restraint from drawing independent legal conclusions in the absence of expert competence.
A particular danger arises in a situation where media criticism turns into a form of covert or overt influence on the adoption of judicial decisions. A judge, being aware of potential reputational risks, may find himself or herself facing an internal conflict between the requirements of the law and the expectations of public opinion.
The Influence of Media Criticism on the Career Advancement of Judges
The career development of judges is linked to the evaluation of their professional activity, reputation, and integrity. However, under current conditions, a judge's media image effectively becomes an additional informal criterion of assessment that influences the decisions of judicial governance bodies regarding the appointment, transfer, or promotion of a judge. Even in the absence of proven violations, a judge who is under constant media criticism may be regarded as a "reputationally risky" candidate. This provokes a situation in which a judge's career depends not only on professional qualities but also on the ability to avoid public conflicts with the media.
Thus, in connection with the mass dismissal of judges during the judicial reform in Ukraine, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter — the ECtHR) in the case of Kulykov and Others v. Ukraine (2017) found, by its judgment, a violation of the right to a fair trial, emphasizing that the disciplinary and administrative measures applied to judges did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality, and that the procedures for their dismissal did not ensure proper consideration of the circumstances of each case. Although public criticism or a negative social background were not directly the subject of consideration in this case, the coverage of the reforms in the media and in political discussions created additional pressure on judges, forming a negative image in the eyes of society and increasing the risk of indirect influence on their careers.
The Kulykov and Others case demonstrates that the system of judges' career advancement is closely connected with the media and political environment, and that the absence of effective procedural guarantees renders judges vulnerable to reputational and information pressure. At the same time, the ECtHR's judgment outlines the need to create protective mechanisms that allow judges to perform their professional duties without fear of political or media reprisals, and that ensure a balance between public oversight and the independence of justice.
Counteracting Information Pressure on Judges
The liability of journalists and bloggers for unlawful influence on the judiciary is regulated by the norms of civil, administrative, and criminal legislation. In particular, the dissemination of inaccurate information may give rise to civil liability in the form of retraction and compensation for moral harm. In cases of deliberate obstruction of the administration of justice or interference in the activity of judicial bodies, the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine may be applied, in particular Article 376, "Interference in the Activity of Judicial Bodies." However, an analysis of Ukrainian practice points to the difficulty of proving a direct connection between public statements and influence on the adoption of a judicial decision, which results in the limited application of such norms.
We see that there is a practical reality: media criticism is often personalized and manipulative in nature, which makes direct public confrontation ineffective and risky. A judge, unlike a politician or a public figure, does not have the tools for active participation in an information struggle, and effectively remains left to face it alone.
It is only natural that a pertinent question arises: why, then, do judges not defend their reputation publicly? The answer should be sought in a combination of ethical, institutional, and practical factors. First, judges are constrained by the norms of professional ethics, which prohibit them from making public statements about their own decisions or criticizing colleagues, so as not to undermine the impartiality and authority of the judiciary. Second, any public comments may be treated as a violation of disciplinary norms or as interference in political processes, which creates real risks for a judge's career and status. Thus, in the Supreme Court and in the judicial community as a whole, the constraints imposed by the norms of judicial ethics are frequently emphasized, in particular the prohibition on commenting on pending cases or rulings that have not yet entered into legal force. As a rule, judges do not give personal comments on their own decisions, leaving this to spokesperson judges or press services in order to avoid accusations of partiality or bias when expressing opinions in the media. This confirms that refraining from public comment is a deliberate strategic choice, which makes it possible to minimize the impact of information pressure while remaining within the bounds of professional ethics and ensuring trust in the judicial system.
European Experience in Protecting Judges from Media Interference
In the member states of the European Union, the protection of judges from unlawful information influence is recognized as a component of the guarantees of judicial independence. Actions aimed at undermining trust in the judiciary may be qualified as defamation or contempt of court.
The European Court of Human Rights, in its case law, has repeatedly emphasized the need to ensure a balance between freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the protection of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary as one of the fundamental elements of a democratic society. At the same time, criticism of judges is permitted, but it must be made in good faith, be based on facts, and not cross over into the format of personal attacks. The Court expressed this position in the case of De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium (1997), where it was emphasized that criticism of judges is permissible only on condition that it is based on verified facts and does not amount to personal insults. At the same time, the ECtHR noted that public oversight of the activity of the courts is an important element of a democratic society.
European experience demonstrates that effective protection of judges from media pressure is possible only on condition of a systemic approach that combines legal guarantees, communication strategies, and a clear delineation between permissible criticism and unlawful interference in the administration of justice. For Ukraine, the implementation of such approaches is an important condition for strengthening the independence of the judiciary and increasing society's trust in the courts.
The problem of information and reputational pressure on the activity of the courts, and of judges in particular, is an objective reality of the contemporary legal space. Judges in many countries face similar risks. At present, effective legal mechanisms for protecting judges from media attacks are absent or limited. The most effective protection remains a restrained and measured reaction by a judge to criticism, which reduces its effect. On the part of civil society, there must be built an understanding rooted in a culture that neither spreads nor accepts as truth unfounded media accusations against the judiciary.
