The Constitutional Court has made a decision on the case determining the constitutionality of Article 94, Part 6 of the Constitutional Law “Judicial Code” based on the application of Arthur Stepanyan, former judge of the First Instance Civil Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan.
The basis for the case was A. Stepanyan’s application submitted to the Constitutional Court on January 10, 2025, while the disciplinary proceedings were initiated following a report addressed to the Minister of Justice.
Attached to the report were the relevant lawyer’s applications addressed to Arthur Stepanyan, former judge of the First Instance Civil Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan.
The Minister of Justice submitted a petition to the Supreme Judicial Council regarding subjecting the judge to disciplinary responsibility.
On July 9, 2024, the concluding part of the Council’s decision was published, which decided to satisfy the petition on subjecting Judge Arthur Stepanyan to disciplinary responsibility and terminate his powers on the grounds of significant disciplinary violation.
What position did the applicant express?
The applicant noted that all 10 members of the Supreme Judicial Council participated in the session held on June 17, but only 8 members’ votes were counted during the voting on the decision to terminate the judge’s powers. Moreover, the content of the decision on terminating the judge’s powers indicates that the Supreme Judicial Council made this decision with full composition – with the participation of all 10 members.
“Although ten members participated in the court session, exercising all the rights reserved for judges, including asking questions, which could influence the formation of their positions, the vote count was based on 8.
Furthermore, the Supreme Judicial Council, having the opportunity to ensure the participation of all members who attended the voting session, did not create such a condition, and for the purpose of vote counting, disregarded 2 judges who participated in the court session.”
What position did the respondent express?
The respondent stated: “It is obvious that the requirement of unanimity in collegial bodies for decision-making will inevitably lead to the impossibility of making decisions and insurmountable obstacles for the activities of that body. In the case of the Supreme Judicial Council, the legislator, by providing for a decision on subjecting a judge to disciplinary responsibility requires a majority of Council members participating in the session, but not less than at least half of the Council members’ votes, found that the presence of the specified number of votes is sufficient for the Council to make a legitimate decision.
Moreover, the RA legislation does not in any case differentiate between the decisions of collegial bodies depending on how many members of the given body supported the decision. That is, a decision made with the maximum number of votes has the same legitimacy and legal force in legal terms as a decision made with the minimum required number of votes.”
The Constitutional Court noted that under the above-mentioned legal provision, when subjecting a judge to disciplinary responsibility, the Council’s decision to terminate their powers on the basis of significant disciplinary violation can be adopted with half of the total number of Council members, that is, 5 votes in favor.
In the decision, the Constitutional Court noted that according to Part 1 of Article 164, titled “Status of a Judge”: “A judge is independent when administering justice (…)”. In the context of the above, the procedure for adopting a decision by the Council on subjecting a judge to disciplinary responsibility by applying the disciplinary sanction of “termination of powers on the grounds of significant disciplinary violation”, under which the decision on terminating a judge’s powers on the grounds of significant disciplinary violation can be adopted with half of the total number of Council members’ votes in favor, seriously endangers the principle of judicial independence, as there is an illegitimate interference with the judge’s further tenure.
The Constitutional Court insisted that disciplinary proceedings against judges must be carried out with strict observance of constitutional and procedural principles required for judicial proceedings.
It should be emphasized that when making the decision, the Constitutional Court did not even consider it necessary to address the issue of interpretation given in the law enforcement practice to the corresponding regulation enshrined in the first sentence of Part 6 of Article 94 cited by the applicant.
Thus, the Constitutional Court decided:
- To recognize the first sentence of Part 6 of Article 94 of the Constitutional Law “Judicial Code of the Republic of Armenia” – in the part providing such regulation for adopting decisions of the Supreme Judicial Council on terminating a judge’s powers on the grounds of significant disciplinary violation when subjecting them to disciplinary responsibility, under which the decision can be adopted with half of the total number of Supreme Judicial Council members, that is, five votes in favor – as contradicting Articles 49 in conjunction with Article 75, Article 164 Part 1, Article 174 Parts 1-3, Article 175 Part 1 Point 7 and Part 2 of the Constitution.
- Taking into account the need not to undermine legal security, in accordance with Article 170, Part 3 of the Constitution, Article 68, Part 9, Point 4, Part 19, and Article 69, Part 13 of the Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court” – to set July 1, 2025 as the deadline for the loss of legal force of the provision of the Constitutional Law “Judicial Code of the Republic of Armenia” recognized as contradicting the Constitution in Point 1 of the concluding part of this Constitutional Court decision, in the part of the legislative regulation specified therein, allowing the National Assembly to bring it into compliance with this decision.
- According to Article 170, Part 2 of the Constitution, this decision is final and enters into force from the moment of its publication.
The full decision is available here
