CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 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 Application no. 19185/23 Anna PILOSYAN against Armenia lodged on 5 May 2023 communicated on 23 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 25 November 2022 Minister of Justice applied to the Supreme Judicial Council (“the SJC”) to subject the applicant – a first-instance court judge at the material time – to a disciplinary measure because, in breach of the relevant provisions of the procedural law, she had not complied with the statutory time-limits for delivering judgments in four civil cases assigned to her, thus committing a disciplinary violation. On 26 December 2022 the SJC allowed the above application and terminated the applicant’s term of office finding that she committed a gross disciplinary violation. Among other things, the decision referenced the fact that the SJC had removed the applicant’s name twice from the judicial case distribution list at the applicant’s request, taking her workload into account. This decision was final and not amenable to appeal before ordinary courts. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the proceedings before the SJC were not fair because in its final decision the SJC relied on a fact (namely, her removal from the case distribution list) that was neither included in the submissions of the Minister of Justice nor raised during the hearings before the SJC. As a result, the applicant claims to have been deprived of the opportunity to comment on an argument that, among other things, served as grounds for the SJC’s decision. She also raises other complaints under that Article (alleged lack of independence of the SJC and lack of access to a court). Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that her dismissal has been in breach of her right to respect for private life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of adversarial hearing respected in the proceedings conducted before the SJC (see Juričić v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, § 75, 26 July 2011; Colloredo Mannsfeld v. the Czech Republic, nos.   15275/11 and 76058/12 , §§ 27-29, 15 December 2016)?   2.     Have there been other violations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as alleged by the applicant?   3.     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 as a result of her dismissal? If so, was the applicant’s 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)?