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. 19640/23 Aleksey SUKOYAN against Armenia lodged on 10 May 2023 communicated on 23 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 26 December 2022 the Minister of Justice, G.M., filed an application with the Supreme Judicial Council (“the SJC”) seeking imposition of disciplinary measure on the applicant, a judge at the first-instance court at the material time. On 30 January 2023 the SJC unanimously allowed G.M.’s application and dismissed the applicant from the post of judge. It found that the applicant had admitted a child adoption application for examination in the absence of a document required by law, namely a certificate confirming that the adoptee was included in the State Registry of Child Adoption. The SJC further held that the applicant had allowed the child’s adoption and the change of the adoptee’s surname with that of the adopter’s partner in violation of the law. This decision of the SJC was final and was not amenable to appeal. The then Chair of the SJC panel examining the applicant’s case, namely K.A., was a friend of G.M. and his wife had a shared business with G.M. On 15 March 2023 the applicant filed an application with the SJC seeking to have the decision of the SJC of 30 January 2023 revised based on newly emerged circumstances, that is lack of impartiality of K.A. given his ties with G.M. The SJC examined and dismissed the applicant’s application that K.A. was not impartial, essentially reiterating its decision taken in respect of a similar application in another case (see Suren Antonyan, no. 20140/23, §§   14 ‑ 15 and 18, 23 January 2025). The relevant decision was taken on 5   April 2023. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that K.A. lacked impartiality given his close ties with the then Minister of Justice G.M. who brought disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The applicant also raises other complaints under Article 6 § 1 (alleged lack of independence of the SJC and fairness of the proceedings, as well as the alleged lack of access to a court). Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his dismissal has been in breach of his right to respect for private life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted the available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint about the alleged lack of impartiality of the then Chair K.A.?   2.     If so, in the light of the applicant’s allegation concerning the lack of impartiality of the then Chair K.A., has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on that account (see Suren Antonyan v. Armenia , no.   20140/23, §§ 132-42, 23 January 2025; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no.   17056/06, §§ 93-99, ECHR 2009; and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, §§ 60-65, 25 September 2018)?   3.     Have there been any other violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as alleged by the applicant?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention as a result of his 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)?