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. 24886/23 Davit HARUTYUNYAN against Armenia lodged on 1 November 2023 communicated on 23 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the dismissal of the applicant, who was a first-instance court judge at the time. He was dismissed by the Supreme Judicial Council (“SJC”) following his public statements where he criticised the SJC including the then Chair K.A. referring to the latter’s personal and commercial ties with the then Minister of Justice G.M. and characterising the dismissal of judges by the SJC as unlawful. During the final hearing the applicant was removed from the hearing room, and the examination of the case continued without the applicant or his representatives present, ultimately concluding in their absence. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the panel sitting on his case, in particular K.A., lacked impartiality due to his personal, professional and commercial ties with the then Minister of Justice G.M., as well as their ex parte meeting while the applicant’s case was still pending before the SJC. He further argues that K.A.’s public statements in his capacity as Minister of Justice undermined his ability to remain impartial as Chair. The applicant complains under same Article that his right to a public hearing was violated. He also complains about the alleged lack of a fair hearing because the hearing of 26 June 2023 was partially held in the applicant’s and his representatives’ absence. In addition, the applicant raises other complaints under Article 6 § 1 (alleged lack of independence of the SJC, fairness of the proceedings, as well as the alleged lack of access to a court). He complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his dismissal has been in breach of his right to respect for private life. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the disciplinary proceedings resulting in his dismissal violated his right to freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s allegation concerning the lack of impartiality of K.A., has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on this account (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, §§   93 ‑ 99, ECHR 2009, and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§   60 ‑ 65, 25 September 2018)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   a)     In particular, was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? What were the specific circumstances justifying the strict necessity for dispensing with a public hearing (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 189-92 and 210, 6 November 2018)?   b)     Was the principle of equality of arms respected in the proceedings conducted before the SJC in the absence of the applicant and his representatives (see Bartaia v. Georgia , no. 10978/06, §§ 26-29, 26 July 2018, and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II )?   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? 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)?   5.     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, necessary and proportionate in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 158-67 and   170-73, 23 June 2016)?