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

echrpress@echr.coe.int | 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.