115. Under Article 7 of the Convention, the first applicant complained that she had been convicted for abuse of office, whereas, in her opinion, a judge could not be convicted for such a crime. Invoking Article 10 of the Convention, the first applicant also complained that she had been convicted for an exchange of information, notably for telephone conversations between her and the second applicant.
116. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Articles of the Convention relied on. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. (s.n. – M. M.-B.)
Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului
(Decizia din data de 20 iunie 2017, CE:ECHR:2017:0620DEC003355607)