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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 12 May 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33220/24 Artur STEPANYAN against Armenia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 23 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The cases concern the dismissal of the applicants, who were first-instance court judges at the time. They were dismissed by the Supreme Judicial Council (“SJC”) for fundamental disciplinary violations. Specifically, the first applicant was found to have exceeded the statutory time limits for delivering judgments. The second applicant was found to have failed to examine a criminal case within a reasonable time leading to the discontinuation of the proceedings. Similarly, the third applicant was also found to have exceeded the reasonable timeframe for examining a criminal case. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 that the panel of the SJC sitting in their case, in particular, the then Chair K.A., lacked impartiality due to his personal, professional and commercial ties with the then Minister of Justice G.M. who initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the applicants. The second and third applicants additionally complain that disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the instructions of Chair K.A. The applicants further complain under the same Article about the lack of fair trial. In particular, the first applicant argues that in its final decision the SJC relied on evidence that was neither included in the submissions of the Minister of Justice nor raised during the hearings. The second applicant complains that the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings were violated as she was unable to present her arguments and evidence due to arriving five minutes late to the hearing on 10 July 2024, only to find that it had already ended (the hearing lasted around two minutes). The applicants also raise other complaints under Article 6 (alleged lack of independence of the SJC, fairness of the proceedings and lack of access to a court). Lastly, the applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that their dismissal has been in breach of their right to respect for private life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicants’ 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)?   2.     Did the first and second applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms and adversarial hearings respected in the proceedings conducted before the SJC ( Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium [GC], no. 49812/09, §§ 134-136, 3 November 2022, and Bacaksız v. Turkey , no. 24245/09, § 56, 10 December 2019)?   3. Have there been any other violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as alleged by the applicants?   4. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention as a result of their dismissal? If so, was the applicants’ 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)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Nationality Represented by 1. 33220/24 08/11/2024 Artur STEPANYAN 10/08/1984 Armenian Siranush SAHAKYAN 2. 34586/24 13/11/2024 Anna DANIBEKYAN 26/10/1978 Armenian   3. 4620/25 01/02/2025 Vahe MISAKYAN 03/09/1988 Armenian Arayik GHAZARYAN