On April 22, 2025, the Constitutional Court of Armenia, based on the application of Judge Artur Stepanyan, ruled to declare unconstitutional the norm allowing for the termination of a judge's powers with 5 affirmative votes from the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) members. The Constitutional Court noted that the legislator is obligated to ensure a regulation whereby the SJC's decisions, especially those concerning the termination of judges' powers, must be adopted by a majority of the total number of Council members' votes, with at least 6 affirmative votes.
Siranush Sahakyan, Head of the "International and Comparative Law Center" and representative of Artur Stepanyan in this case, commented on the Constitutional Court's decision in an interview with iravaban.net, stating that this process strengthens the constitutional guarantees of judicial independence.
"The Constitutional Court provided an important stance that such a regulation is unconstitutional. Reduced thresholds that allow the Supreme Judicial Council to terminate a judge's powers without broad consensus are not consistent with the constitutional guarantees of judicial independence. If the norm prescribing the voting procedure is unconstitutional, it means it is subject to abolition. Of course, we have a crucial principle stipulated by both domestic and international standards: the restoration of the previous situation, which mandates that the judge regains their former status. Only under these conditions can the Constitutional Court's decision be considered fulfilled. Any other solution would lead to unlawfulness," Sahakyan stated.
The Ministry of Justice has circulated a new draft to amend this part of the "Judicial Code" constitutional law. The amendment primarily concerns the voting and decision-making procedure, specifically that SJC decisions related to the termination of a judge's powers, including those based on a significant disciplinary violation, can be adopted by a majority of the total number of SJC members' votes.
Speaking about the presented draft, Sahakyan emphasized that the proposed amendment will strengthen judges' protection against unlawful electoral, discriminatory, and disciplinary processes that could lead to the termination of their powers. "The presented draft will essentially be of significant importance from the perspective of protecting judges' rights. It turns out that when judges are subjected to disciplinary responsibility, criminal prosecution, or deprivation of liberty, the threshold for guarantees of judicial independence is raised," the human rights advocate said.
Previously, when a judge's powers were terminated, reference was often made to the norm that the judge must refrain from actions that discredit the judiciary. Several international organizations have also expressed concerns regarding the legal uncertainty of this provision, insisting that specific guidelines should be provided to judges on what actions are considered discrediting.
"In our specific case, the systemic problem of judicial case delays, which is generally not related to the judge's subjective factors, was qualified as an action discrediting the judiciary. This also shows how vaguely that provision is formulated, allowing any case, any situation, even a procedural violation, to fall under this rule of conduct," Sahakyan noted.