CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 avril 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 May 2025   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 61807/21 and 26173/23 Zaruhi NAKHSHKARYAN against Armenia lodged on 27 May 2022 and 9 June 2023 respectively communicated on 24 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES On 21 May 2019 the applicant – a first-instance court judge at the material time – publicly criticised the Prime Minister of Armenia. On 29 November 2021 the Supreme Judicial Council (“the SJC”), upon an application lodged by the Minister of Justice (“MoJ”) issued a severe reprimand to the applicant because in a civil case, brought by the Prime Minister’s minor daughter (at the time), the applicant did not withdraw even though her impartiality was put into doubt – she had previously criticised the Prime Minister. On 25 December 2022, when disciplinary proceedings against Judge P. were pending before the SJC, the applicant published a statement on her Facebook page, voicing her disagreement with those proceedings. Later, in another Facebook post, she critcised the subsequent decision of the SJC to dismiss Judge P. for failure to respect time-limits to deliver a judgment. She also gave a few interviews in which she, inter alia , questioned the SJC’s decision. On 27 February 2023, upon an application lodged by the MoJ, the SJC terminated the applicant’s term of office on account of a gross disciplinary violation committed with intent which was incompatible with the status of a judge. It found, inter alia , that her statements were not protected by the right to freedom of expression. No appeal lay against the decisions of the SJC. The applicant complains that the then Acting Chair of the SJC, namely G.J., sitting on the panel of the SJC during the first set of the disciplinary proceedings against her, was elected in disregard of the statutory eligibility requirements. The applicant further complains under Article 10 that the disciplinary proceedings resulting in her dismissal violated her right to freedom of expression. She also raises other complaints under Article 6 § 1 (alleged lack of independence of the SJC and lack of access to a court) and Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Can the panel of the Supreme Judicial Council sitting on the first disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, be considered to be a “tribunal established by law”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 244-51, 1   December 2020)? In particular, was the appointment of G.J. to the SJC in compliance with the domestic law?   2. Have there been other violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as alleged by the applicant?   3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 ( see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 158-67 and 170-73, 23 June 2016, and Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey , no. 76521/12, §§ 121-24 and 126, 9 March 2021)?   4. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the imposition of a “severe reprimand” on the applicant and her subsequent dismissal in accordance with the law? Was it necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , no. 21722/11, §§ 165-70, ECHR 2013)?