003-7821649-10855903

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 342 (2023)   07.12.2023   European Court rejects as inadmissible complaints brought by Constitutional   Court judges and President about termination of their terms of office   In its decision in the case of Gyulumyan and Others v. Armenia (application no. 25240/20) the   European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The   decision is final.   The case concerned the termination of the four applicants’ terms of office at the Constitutional   Court in 2020, following constitutional amendments which had not been subject to judicial review.   The context of those events was the “Velvet Revolution”, a new government and their efforts to   combat corruption.   The applicants brought complaints essentially under Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court) and   Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court found that even though the applicants’ claim had concerned an arguable right under   Armenian law, namely their entitlement to serve their full terms of office until retirement, their   exclusion from access to a court had been justified on objective grounds. In particular, their terms of   office had been ended through a constitutional amendment, which had been part of broader reform   and which had not been directed against them specifically.   Furthermore, there had been no significant impact on their private lives: one of the applicants –   formerly President of the Constitutional Court – had remained in office as a judge of the   Constitutional Court, while the other three applicants were entitled to a full pension, regardless of   their age. Nor was there any evidence of the authorities having singled out any of the applicants   with negative remarks about their professional performance, personality or moral values.   A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link).   Principal facts   The applicants, Alvina Gyulumyan, Hrant Nazaryan, Feliks Tokhyan, and Hrayr Tovmasyan, are   Armenian nationals who were born between 1956 and 1970 and live in Yerevan. The first, second   and third applicants were judges of the Armenian Constitutional Court, the last applicant was the   President of that court. Ms Gyulumyan was also previously a judge at the European Court of Human   Rights. At the time of their appointments, they were given life tenure, meaning they were to remain   in office until their retirement.   However, in June 2020 the terms of office of the first, second and third applicants, who had served   more than 13, 24 and 22 years respectively, were terminated. The term of office of the fourth   applicant as President of the Constitutional Court was also terminated, but he has remained as a   judge of that court.   These events took place around and following what is known in Armenia as the “Velvet Revolution”,   with large demonstrations in 2018 leading to the government being peacefully overturned. The new   government’s priorities were combatting corruption and judicial reform.   In the following years there ensued a period of conflict between the Government and Parliament, on   the one side, and the Constitutional Court, on the other. Against that background the Venice   Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters, was called upon to   prepare several opinions on a judicial reform package proposed by the Government, involving a   voluntary retirement scheme for certain Constitutional Court judges (such as the applicants), and   draft constitutional amendments.   The draft constitutional amendments proposed were, among other things, that the terms of office of   those judges of the Constitutional Court who had already served a total of 12 years be terminated,   and that all other judges continue to serve until the completion of a 12-year term. It was further   proposed that the term of office of the President of the Constitutional Court be terminated, but as   his 12-year term was not up, that he continue to sit as a judge of that court.   The National Assembly adopted those amendments in June 2020 and they immediately entered into   force.   The applicants had in the meantime refused the offer of early retirement and their terms of office   were thus terminated.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 June 2020.   Relying in particular on Articles 6 § 1 (right of access to court) and 8 (right to respect for private and   family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that they had   not had access to a court to contest the termination of their terms of judicial office, and that that   termination had been arbitrary. They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection   of property) to the European Convention of the loss of their future income. Lastly, they relied on   Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) taken in   conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention.   The decision was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), President,   Arnfinn Bårdsen (Norway),   Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),   Pauliine Koskelo (Finland),   Jovan Ilievski (North Macedonia),   Péter Paczolay (Hungary),   Anna Margaryan (Armenia), ad hoc Judge,   and also Renata Degener, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Firstly, the Court found that Article 6 – and its guarantees of access to court – was not applicable to   the applicants’ case. Even though their claim concerned an arguable right under Armenian law,   namely their entitlement to serve their full terms until retirement, their access to a court had been   excluded under domestic law and that exclusion had been justified on objective grounds1.   In particular, the Court found that the applicants’ exclusion from access to court under domestic law   had implicitly stemmed from the systemic interpretation of the applicable legal framework or the   whole body of legal regulation.   Moreover, that exclusion had been justified by the fact that the applicants had been judges of the   Constitutional Court, the highest court with a special status in the Armenian judiciary, and that their   Under what is known in the Court’s case-law as the Eskelinen test (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00 of   19.4.2007), disputes involving those holding a public post could only be excluded from the scope of Article 6 § 1 if two conditions were   met: access to a court had to be excluded, either explicitly or implicitly, under national law and this exclusion was justified on objective   grounds in the State interest.   terms of office had been ended through a constitutional amendment, which had been part of a   broader constitutional reform and which had not been directed against them specifically. The Court   notably referred to the successive Venice Commission opinions which comprehensively dealt with   various aspects of the judicial reform, stating in particular in 2020 that constitutional developments   in Armenia over the past 25 years had showed a “continued struggle for the improvement of   democratic standards and the promotion of the rule of law”.   Secondly, the Court found that Article 8 was also not applicable. It concluded that the negative   effects which the termination of the applicants’ terms of office had had on their private life had not   crossed the threshold of seriousness for Article 8 of the Convention to apply. There had been no   significant impact on their income: the fourth applicant remained in office as a judge of the   Constitutional Court, while the other applicants were entitled to a full pension, regardless of their   age. Nor was there any evidence of the authorities singling out any of the applicants with negative   remarks about their professional performance, personality or moral values. Since Article 8 was not   applicable, Articles 14 and 18 taken in conjunction with that Article were not applicable either.   Lastly, the Court rejected as inadmissible the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   It found that future income could not be considered to constitute a “possession” unless it had   already been earned or was definitely payable.   The decision is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3