The decision concerns the case of Suren Antonyan v. Armenia regarding the dismissal of a judge following disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). The Court examined three main aspects:
- Whether the SJC satisfied the requirements of an independent tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
- Whether the applicant was denied access to a court due to inability to appeal SJC decisions
- Whether the SJC lacked impartiality due to its Chair’s relationship with the Minister of Justice who brought the disciplinary proceedings
The Court’s key findings were:
- The SJC qualified as an independent tribunal despite some deficiencies in the nomination process of non-judicial members
- The applicant was not denied access to a court since the SJC itself qualified as a tribunal under Article 6
- There was a violation regarding impartiality due to the close personal and business relationship between the SJC Chair and the Minister of Justice who initiated the proceedings
The most significant aspects of the decision are:
- Confirmation that a judicial council can qualify as a tribunal under Article 6 even if not part of regular court system
- Equal representation of judicial and non-judicial members in a judicial council is acceptable
- Close personal/business relationships between disciplinary body members and those bringing charges must be disclosed and addressed
- The Court awarded €3,600 in non-pecuniary damages and indicated that reopening proceedings would be appropriate redress
