Judges' union urges restraint from Judicial Council

PanARMENIAN.Net - The Judges' Union has issued a statement calling on the Supreme Judicial Council to act consistently and, in particular, to demonstrate restraint and conduct befitting judges during court hearings.

The statement notes that with regard to sitting judge members of the Supreme Judicial Council, the same body has made remarks that “go beyond the limits of free speech and criticism, containing elements of insult and institutional discredit.”

“The Supreme Judicial Council continues a renewed examination of disciplinary proceedings against Davit Harutyunyan, initiated on the basis of a Constitutional Court decision and stemming from the annulment in 2023 of a decision unlawfully terminating the judge’s powers.

In this and similar previous cases concerning judges Suren Antonyan and Artur Stepanyan, the Supreme Judicial Council has failed to comply with the requirements of the Constitutional Court and Article 157(9) of the Judicial Code. Even after revoking its own unlawful decisions, and while refusing to reinstate the judges to their former positions, it examined disciplinary cases against them through procedures not предусмотренные by law, without restoring their judicial status, rights and guarantees.

These processes have also been accompanied by manifestations damaging to the authority of the judiciary.

On February 20, 2026, a non-judge member of the Supreme Judicial Council, characterizing the judicial system in 2011-2023 as ‘corrupt from top to bottom, from appointments and dismissals to rulings issued for a price,’ and citing as the source of such assessments the ‘international community’ and/or non-existent reports of reputable international organizations, asked judge Davit Harutyunyan — who in 2023 had been subjected to disciplinary liability for an alleged violation of free speech (‘for individually and by consensus adopting decisions in the Supreme Judicial Council and unlawfully terminating judges’ powers’) — whether he regarded those (‘international community’) assessments as an attack on the judiciary and, if so, why he had not criticized those reports.

In response to calls by a person facing disciplinary liability for free speech not to make unfounded statements harming the judiciary, to a motion for recusal, and to requests not to publish the cited videos, the Council by its decision of February 23, 2026, deemed its member’s statements lawful (even not creating an appearance of bias), asserting that his remarks were based on international reports (‘not authoritative for the Supreme Judicial Council’), while refusing to cite even one.

During the same period, neither international nor domestic bodies, organizations or the ‘international community’ have issued assessments — even non-authoritative, let alone authoritative — containing such conclusions (as evidenced by the absence of a specific reference in the Council’s decision). Even if such assessments existed and were known only to the Council, they could not serve as grounds for references ensuring pluralism or for making statements harmful to the authority of the judiciary.

In other words, in the history of the Republic of Armenia, such assessments have not appeared in reports of any reputable international organization, meaning the statements voiced contain unfounded and fabricated evaluations.

The body guaranteeing judges’ independence under the Constitution had, until 2023, regularly held judges accountable for alleged abuse of free speech in connection with criticism of the Supreme Judicial Council and processes affecting judicial independence. However, in 2026, with respect to the judiciary, including sitting judge members of the Council, the same Council allowed statements that go beyond the limits of free speech and criticism and contain elements of insult and institutional discredit, particularly given that they were voiced from the Council’s podium, disseminated by it and viewed by thousands of citizens.

Given that the Council has already unanimously assessed the aforementioned actions, raising the issue of individual members’ responsibility becomes impractical. Nevertheless, we call on the Supreme Judicial Council to act consistently and, especially during court hearings, to demonstrate restraint and conduct befitting judges,” the statement said.