Texto original publicado por No es época para tontos.
What happens to the right of defence when a lawyer who criticizes a judge, prosecutor, police officer or state expert can be fined, prosecuted, disciplined—or permanently removed from the profession—by that same system?
This university-level legal podcast examines thirteen European case studies on freedom of advocacy, judicial authority and the limits of lawyers’ speech: Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, Tešić v. Serbia, Čeferin v. Slovenia, Raspović v. Croatia, Morice v. France, Pisanski v. Croatia, Steur v. the Netherlands, Nikula v. Finland, Bono v. France, Rogalski v. Poland, Namazov v. Azerbaijan, Imanov v. Azerbaijan and the comparative case study of Emili Campos in Andorra.
Through a rigorous debate between two opposing perspectives, the programme asks whether courts must punish aggressive or damaging accusations to preserve public confidence—or whether disciplinary proceedings, financial penalties and disbarment can become instruments for silencing the lawyers who challenge institutional power.
The analysis explores Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the protection afforded to lawyers’ speech, proportionality, equality of arms, factual basis, value judgments, criticism made inside judicial proceedings and the chilling effect created even when no final fine is imposed. It also examines the “inversion of scrutiny”: the moment when institutions stop investigating the alleged misconduct raised by a lawyer and redirect their power toward investigating the lawyer.
Andorra serves as the comparative bridge. The episode examines the institutional response to a formal filing submitted by Emili Campos in a case involving €737,000 in blocked BPA funds. It asks whether notifying the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Andorran Bar Association shifts attention from the substance of the judicial complaint toward the professional conduct of the defence lawyer.
This is not a European Court of Human Rights judgment concerning Emili Campos. As of 10 August 2026, he had not been suspended, disbarred or criminally convicted in relation to this matter. The Andorran case is examined only through the principles emerging from the twelve Strasbourg cases. No participation, authorization or endorsement by Emili Campos, any court, university or public institution should be inferred.
Where is the boundary between forceful defence and personal attack? Who should judge criticism directed at judges? Can censorship exist without a financial penalty? Does disbarment protect justice—or frighten an entire profession into silence?
Full series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaK6A4S26xUQ
The English edition of “EMILI CAMPOS — Lawyers Facing the System”, by Josep Guirao, is available on Amazon. ASIN: B0HFGRP12G.
Independent documentary analysis conducted using Blaxxun agentic artificial intelligence under the editorial responsibility of Josep Guirao.
#HumanRights #ECtHR #LegalEducation #FreedomOfExpression #RightOfDefence #Andorra #EmiliCampos
