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. 52297/22 Ruben VARDAZARYAN against Armenia lodged on 21 October 2022 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 and the former Chair of the Supreme Judicial Council (“the SJC”) at the time. He was dismissed by the SJC following his public statements where he expressed his disagreement with a decision of the Constitutional Court concerning eligibility requirements applicable to non-judicial members of the SJC. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the SJC panel sitting on his case was not impartial. Specifically, the applicant alleges that prior to the disciplinary proceedings against him, a non ‑ judicial member of the SJC, G.J., tried to pressurise him to resign and then participated in the disciplinary proceedings against him as an Acting Chair of the SJC. The applicant further complains about the alleged lack of impartiality of those SJC members who lodged an application with the SJC seeking to impose a disciplinary measure on the applicant and later sat on the SJC panel examining the very same application. The applicant also complains under the same Article about the lack of fair trial on account of the violation of the principle of equality of arms because the only hearing of the SJC of 16   June 2022 was held in his and his representative’s absence, despite the latter’s application to adjourn the case. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his dismissal has been in breach of his right to respect for private life. He further complains under Article 10 that his right to freedom of expression was breached as a result of his dismissal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted the available domestic remedies in respect of his complaints about the alleged lack of impartiality of the SJC panel sitting on his case?   2.     If so, in the light of the applicant’s allegation concerning the lack of impartiality of the SJC panel sitting on his case, 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)?   3.     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? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected in the proceedings conducted before the SJC in the absence of the applicant and his representative (see Bartaia v. Georgia , no. 10978/06, §§ 26-29, 26 July 2018 , and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II)?   4.     Have there been other violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as alleged by the applicant?   5.     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)?   6.     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, and Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey , no. 76521/12, §§   121 ‑ 24 and 126, 9 March 2021)?