Judgment Suren Antonyan v. Armenia - Insufficient procedural safeguards against partiality in Armenian Supreme Judicial Council case

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 025 (2025)   23.01.2025   Insufficient procedural safeguards against partiality in Armenian Supreme   Judicial Council case   The case of Suren Antonyan v. Armenia (application no. 20140/23) concerned the dismissal of   Mr Antonyan from his position as judge by the Supreme Judicial Council in January 2023. He had   been appointed as a judge of the Civil and Administrative Chamber of the Court of Cassation in 2009,   with tenure until the age of 65.   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,   that there had been:   a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the alleged lack   of impartiality of the Chair of the Supreme Judicial Council, and   no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) as regards the alleged lack of independence of   the Supreme Judicial Council and as regards Mr Antonyan’s alleged lack of access to a court.   The Court found in particular that the way in which non-judicial members were appointed to the   Supreme Judicial Council could not be said to have compromised its independence. In particular, the   institutional and operational arrangements in place provided sufficient formal safeguards and the   Supreme Judicial Council acted as a “court” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1. At the same time, the   Court found that the Supreme Judicial Council had failed to dispel Mr Antonyan’s justifiable doubts   concerning the impartiality of its chair and that he had not been provided with sufficient procedural   safeguards in that respect.   Principal facts   The applicant, Suren Antonyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Yerevan.   In 2018 the Supreme Judicial Council (Բարձրագույն դատական խորհուրդ) – the SJC – was set up in   Armenia with responsibility for deciding on disciplinary measures against judges, including dismissal.   It is composed of five judicial and five non-judicial members, appointed for a five-year non-   renewable term. The judicial members are elected by the General Assembly of Judges, that is by   their peers, while non-judicial members are nominated by political groups and elected by the   National Assembly.   In 2009 Mr Antonyan was appointed as a judge of the Civil and Administrative Chamber of the Court   of Cassation with tenure until the age of 65. He was dismissed from that position by the Supreme   Judicial Council in January 2023. This took place in the context of an investigation into the   overturning by the Court of Cassation of a final judicial decision in a property dispute. That   overturning had been the subject of Amirkhanyan v. Armenia (no. 22343/08), where the European   Court had found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property). In particular, the Court had held that by admitting another appeal lodged   by the same party and subsequently granting it, the Court of Cassation had overturned a final   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   judgment issued in Mr Amirkhanyan’s favour in a property dispute and had thereby breached the   principle of res judicata and had unlawfully deprived Mr Amirkhanyan of his possessions.   Mr Antonyan had sat on the adjudicating panel of that court.   On 30 November 2022 the then Acting Minister of Justice, G.M., decided to initiate disciplinary   proceedings against Mr Antonyan and subsequently applied to the SJC to determine his disciplinary   liability. On 18 January 2023, Mr Antonyan sought the withdrawal of the chair, K.A., from the panel   of the SJC, submitting, in particular, that he was biased as he was friends and former colleagues with   G.M. – prior to his appointment to the SJC, K.A. had held the post of Minister of Justice and had   appointed G.M. as his deputy. He also argued that it was common knowledge that G.M. and K.A.’s   wife had economic links, holding respectively 60% and 40% of the shares in a local law firm.   On 26 January 2023 the SJC allowed G.M.’s application and decided, unanimously, to terminate   Mr Antonyan’s term of office on account of a fundamental disciplinary violation under section   142(6)(1) of the Judicial Code. It rejected his application seeking the withdrawal of K.A., noting that   an economic interest could be present only when one of the parties had a substantial leverage   directly impacting upon the judge’s, or his or her close relative’s, financial interests. It held that the   well-known facts pinpointed by Mr Antonyan were not sufficient of themselves to conclude that K.A.   could be biased. The decision to terminate Mr Antonyan’s term of office came into force   immediately and was final, with no possibility of appeal.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Antonyan complained that the Supreme Judicial   Council was not an “independent and impartial tribunal” because its non-judicial members were   nominated and elected through a procedure which was neither merit-based nor transparent and   was allegedly politicised. He also alleged that its chair was not impartial. Given the impossibility to   appeal against his dismissal by the Supreme Judicial Council, Mr Antonyan also complained that he   had been denied the right of access to court.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 May 2023.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Mattias Guyomar (France), President,   Armen Harutyunyan (Armenia),   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Monaco),   Gilberto Felici (San Marino),   Andreas Zünd (Switzerland),   Kateřina Šimáčková (the Czech Republic),   Mykola Gnatovskyy (Ukraine),   and also Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that its task was not to decide on any possible issue stemming from the fact that   Mr Antonyan had been dismissed for what he had decided as a judge. It had to examine whether the   SJC complied with the requirements of an “independent and impartial tribunal”.   The Court was satisfied that the SJC could be regarded as a “tribunal” within the meaning of   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It had full jurisdiction to decide on Mr Antonyan’s disciplinary liability   2 and the proceedings had followed a procedure prescribed by law. The decisions, which had to be   reasoned, were final and binding.   In addressing the issue whether it was an “independent tribunal”, the Court agreed with   Mr Antonyan that allowing all prospective candidates to apply for the post of non-judicial member of   the SJC would benefit and further enhance the transparency of the nomination procedure. However,   the Court considered that the manner of appointment of non-judicial members could not be said to   have compromised the SJC’s independence. In particular, the institutional and operational   arrangements in place provided safeguards against any undue influence of the legislature, and the   process was both merit-based and transparent. Although non-involvement in politics for a   reasonable period before appointment to the SJC would have been desirable, the fact that non-   judicial members had held high-level posts in the executive just prior to their appointment, was not   sufficient to say the SJC’s independence was compromised.   Although Mr Antonyan’s arguments, namely about the lack of involvement of the opposition in the   process of selection of non-judicial members, raised some concerns with the requirements of   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court could not conclude that the SJC lacked independence. No   evidence had been submitted that the appointment of the non-judicial members sitting in   Mr Antonyan’s case had been tainted by political influence. The Court saw no issue as regards the   number of judicial versus non-judicial members, and was also satisfied by the strict institutional   guarantees that were in place to ensure that the SJC was protected from both inside and outside   pressure. As there was nothing to show that the safeguards in place were merely theoretical and did   not operate in practice, the Court concluded that the SJC satisfied the formal requirements of an   “independent tribunal” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   With regard to Mr Antonyan’s complaint that he had been denied the right of access to a court   because of his inability to appeal, the Court reiterated that the SJC acted as a “court” for the   purposes of Article 6 § 1, and the lack of further review of its decisions before the ordinary courts   did not raise an issue. Therefore, there had been no violation of Mr Antonyan’s rights on that   account.   As regards whether the SJC had lacked impartiality owing to the participation of Chair K.A., the Court   was of the view that the close relationship between G.M. and K.A. could well give rise to misgivings   as to K.A.’s impartiality. The Court noted that K.A. had not brought his friendship and his wife’s   business ties with G.M. to the immediate attention of the SJC, as he should have done. Even in the   absence of any direct financial link between K.A. and G.M., the fact that they were friends and that   K.A.’s wife and G.M. had shared business interests should have alerted K.A. to the possibility that his   impartiality could be questioned. With that in mind, the SJC should have seriously examined   Mr Antonyan’s request for K.A.’s recusal.   The Court was not persuaded by the SJC’s reasoning that a lack of impartiality of only one member   of a judicial panel could not call into the question the impartiality of the whole body. Furthermore,   K.A. was the Chair of the SJC and the rapporteur in Mr Antonyan’s case leading the discussions,   which constituted an additional circumstance that was incompatible with the appearance of   impartiality. Moreover, the SJC had only addressed Mr Antonyan’s arguments about the economic   ties between K.A. and G.M.’s wife, without giving any reply to his specific arguments about K.A.’s   and G.M.’s close personal relationship and its potential to influence K.A.’s decision-making in his   case. The withdrawal of K.A. would still have allowed the SJC to examine and rule on Mr Antonyan’s   case, as the presence of only six of the eight members of the adjudicating SJC panel would have   sufficed.   The Court found that the SJC had failed to dispel Mr Antonyan’s justifiable doubts concerning the   impartiality of its chair and that he had not been provided with sufficient procedural safeguards in   that respect. It was not necessary for the Court to rule whether, as argued by Mr Antonyan, K.A. had   guided the composition of the SJC to take a particular stance in his case.   3 There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   As regards pecuniary damage, the Court considered that the most appropriate form of redress   would be the reopening of the proceedings in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of   the Convention should Mr Antonyan so request.   The Court held that Armenia was to pay Mr Antonyan 3,600 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 1,420 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X   (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4