Published on 12 May 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 27927/22
Sima ISKANDARYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 3 June 2022
communicated on 23 April 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant, a first-instance court judge at the time, was involved in a car accident. While being arrested by force, she called one of the police officers a “sheep”. The police officer reported the incident to the then Acting Chair of the Supreme Judicial Council (“the SJC”), G.J., and upon his suggestion, submitted a written explanation to him. G.J. then forwarded her explanation to the Commission of Ethics and Disciplinary Matters (“the Commission”), based on which the Commission opened disciplinary proceedings against the applicant with a view to deciding whether to submit an application to the SJC, which would determine the applicant’s disciplinary liability. Although the Commission discontinued the proceedings, the matter was pursued by the Minister of Justice, who submitted an application to the SJC to determine the applicant’s disciplinary liability on the basis of the same events. Eventually, the SJC decided to terminate the applicant’s term of office on account of a gross disciplinary violation. It held that the applicant’s behavior and remarks directed at the police officer were incompatible with the status of a judge.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the then Acting Chair, G.J., lacked impartiality and that, despite having prior knowledge of the circumstances of the case, he did not withdraw from the proceedings. She also raises other complaints under that Article.
Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that her dismissal has been in breach of her right to respect for private life.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of the applicant’s allegation concerning the lack of impartiality of G.J., has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on that account (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 71, 25 September 2018, and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 104‑106 and 115, ECHR 2013)?
2. Have there been other violations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as alleged by the applicant?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her 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)?