The responses received by the Disciplinary Commission of the Justice Council regarding applications submitted by citizens have been discussed multiple times by legal practitioners, which are not perceived unambiguously. However, let us present everything with facts. The basis of responsibility has been the recorded limitation of the citizen's constitutional right to judicial protection, as the dispute is not subject to examination. The Court of Cassation subsequently accepted the citizen's appeal and sent the case back to the first instance for a new examination.
The decision to hold judges accountable has made numerous references to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and the Conventions, emphasizing the possibility of judicial protection of individual rights. And indeed, the Commission's decision to hold accountable is justified, as there is a real dangerous precedent of returning citizens' applications without basis on the grounds of not being subject to the court.
In civil case No. KД/0504/02/12, Judge A. Sisakyan of the general jurisdiction court of Kotayk region rejected the application submitted by citizen Samvel Kirakosyan for acceptance into proceedings on 16.11.2012, on the grounds that the dispute is not subject to examination in the general jurisdiction court of Kotayk region.
Samvel Kirakosyan then appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Disciplinary Commission of the Justice Council, stating that his constitutional right had been violated, according to Article 15, Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, all civil cases are subject to the first instance general jurisdiction court, and in that civil case, he submitted an application to the court regarding the claim for damages, directed against a physical person. Judge A. Sisakyan of the general jurisdiction court of Kotayk region, 'ignoring' the fact that the differentiation of subject matter jurisdiction is based on two principles—the subjective composition of the dispute participants and the nature of the dispute—rejected the application for acceptance into proceedings, allowing a blatant violation of the right to appeal to the court regarding civil rights and obligations guaranteed to every person by the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and Article 6, Part 1 of the ECHR. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal of citizen Samvel Kirakosyan, noting the error made by Judge A. Sisakyan of the general jurisdiction court of Kotayk region.
In our days, the application of double standards has manifested itself in the Commission's differentiated position regarding the same negative phenomenon, namely, that if in the first case the judges were held accountable, in this case, the issue was not resolved in the same way. If in the first case the limitation of the citizen's right on the grounds of not being subject to the court served as the basis for holding the judge accountable, then in the second case, the return of the citizen's complaint without basis on the grounds of not being subject to the court did not result in the judge's responsibility. The citizen received a letter confirmed by the signature of the head of the Justice Council's staff, stating that 'Your appeal has been granted...' without indicating what significance the granting of the appeal has when in the first case the citizen's cassation appeal was also granted, and whether this removes the basis for holding disciplinary responsibility, whether the Commission's differentiated approach to the same factual situations is justified.