CASE OF SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)
Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Vardenis. She worked as a judge at Gegharkunik Regional Court. 6. On 17 February 2004 the Minister of Justice filed a motion with the Council of Justice seeking to have the applicant dismissed from her post under Section 30 (8) of the Law on the Status of a Judge. The motion stated that the applicant had been severely reprimanded on three occasions, namely in 1997, 2000 and 2001, for various gross violations of the rules of criminal procedure and another set of disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against her on the same grounds in December 2003. 7. On 2 March 2004 the Council of Justice examined the motion and decided to form a three-member commission to examine the factual basis of the motion and to report back to the Council. 8. On 27 April 2004 the Council of Justice adopted a conclusion recommending to the President of Armenia that the applicant be dismissed. 9. On 30 April 2004 the President of Armenia issued a decree dismissing the applicant from her post. 10. On 15 March 2005 the applicant lodged a claim with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, seeking to annul the President’s Decree of 30 April 2004 as unlawful. She argued that her dismissal from work had been in violation of a number of provisions of domestic law and various European instruments relating to the status of a judge. In particular, the motion for dismissal filed by the Minister of Justice on 17 February 2004 had been based upon matters which had been the subject of earlier disciplinary proceedings and in respect of which penalties had already been imposed. The motion did not contain any reasoning and was not accompanied by any supporting documentation and was, therefore, unsubstantiated. She further argued that judicial decisions were not supposed to be subject to a review other than by way of an appeal procedure prescribed by law. Thus, the commission of gross violations of the law (the alleged grounds for her dismissal) could only have been found by a higher court (which had not happened in her case) and not by non-judicial bodies and officials, such as the Council of Justice or the Minister of Justice. Finally, she claimed that the question of her dismissal had been examined by the Council of Justice in her absence, in violation of the relevant rules. 11. On 26 May 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided under Article 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure to terminate the proceedings on the ground that the applicant’s claim was not subject to examination by the courts of general jurisdiction. In doing so, the District Court referred, inter alia, to Article 100 (1) of the Constitution, Article 15 § 2 of the Civil Code and Article 160 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CCP). 12. On 7 June 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal. 13. On 13 July 2005 the Civil Court of Appeal examined and dismissed the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. 14. On 5 August 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 15. On 23 September 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and decided to terminate the proceedings on the same grounds as the District Court. 16. On 16 November 2006, in proceedings unrelated to this case, the Constitutional Court found the second paragraph of Article 160 § 1 of the CCP to be unconstitutional.