CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s1F8597E2 { width:129.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 13116/18 FOCUS ART and Ashot BOYAJYAN against Armenia   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 June 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Diana Sârcu , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   13116/18) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2   March 2018 by a non-governmental organisation, Focus Art NGO, and an Armenian national, Mr Ashot Boyajyan (“the applicants”), represented by Mr   T.   Yegoryan, Mr D. Gyurjyan and Ms L. Hakobyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the right of access to a court to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the alleged denial of access to the Court of Cassation due to procedural time-limit restrictions. 2.     On 10 October 2016 the applicants lodged a civil claim in the scope of criminal proceedings, seeking compensation for damage caused by a crime. 3.     On 20 February 2017 the trial court delivered its judgment in the criminal case. It granted the civil claim in part. 4.     The applicants appealed against the judgment. 5.     On 13 June 2017 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal on the merits.   The applicants received the decision on 20   June 2017. 6.     On 17 July 2017 the applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation. 7.     On 28 August 2017 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible on the grounds that it had been lodged outside the one-month appeal time-limit, counted from the date of the pronouncement, and no request had been submitted to restore it. 8.     On 8 December 2017 the Constitutional Court delivered a decision regarding, inter alia , the constitutionality of counting the one-month appeal time-limit from the date of the pronouncement. It held that in all cases where the court had failed to make its judicial act available to the party concerned or to serve it on him within the time-limit prescribed by law (three days in the present case), the full statutory time-limit should apply, without taking into account any period required to make the judicial act available to the party. Furthermore, if the appellant clearly demonstrates and substantiates that the delay occurred due to the court’s failure, the missed time-limit had to be restored by the force of law ( ex jure ), without a formal requirement for submitting a request and without a discretionary consideration thereof. 9.     On 2 March 2018 the applicants resubmitted their appeal to the Court of Cassation, relying on the Constitutional Court’s decision as a new development. 10.     On 7 April 2018 the Court of Cassation delivered a new decision regarding the appeal. It essentially found that its application of the appeal time-limit had been inconsistent with the Constitutional Court’s interpretation. It therefore held that the Constitutional Court’s decision warranted a reconsideration of its prior inadmissibility decision and a review of the appeal. However, the court ultimately concluded that the applicants had not substantiated a judicial error by the lower court․ Consequently, it declared the applicants’ appeal inadmissible for lack of merit. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 11.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Court of Cassation, by its decision of 28 August 2017 declaring their appeal inadmissible as out of time, breached their right of access to a court. 12.     The Court reiterates that it falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see Scordino v.   Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 179, ECHR 2006-V). It further reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” for the purposes of Article   34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention. As to the redress which is “appropriate” and “sufficient” in order to remedy a breach of a Convention right at national level, the Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, having regard, in particular, to the nature of the Convention violation at stake   (see Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no.   26828/06, §§ 259-260, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). 13.     The Court observes that the applicants initially submitted their appeal to the Court of Cassation within one month from the date of service of the Criminal Court of Appeal’s decision. However, in its decision dated 28   August 2017, the Court of Cassation calculated the one-month appeal time-limit from the date of the pronouncement. Consequently, it declared the appeal inadmissible for failure to comply with the time-limit and to submit a request for its restoration. 14.     The applicants resubmitted their appeal, relying on the Constitutional Court’s decision of 8 December 2017 as a new development. Based on this decision, the Court of Cassation recognised that its earlier inadmissibility ruling had been inconsistent with the Constitutional Court’s interpretation. Consequently, it revisited its earlier decision and declared the applicants’ appeal inadmissible for lack of merit, rather than for non-compliance with the appeal time-limit. The Court considers that the Court of Cassation thereby, in substance, acknowledged the breach of the applicants’ right of access to a court and provided redress which was “appropriate” and “sufficient” in the particular circumstances. Furthermore, the applicants do not raise any complaint or argument regarding the Court of Cassation’s latter decision. 15.     In light of the above, the Court concludes that the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violation as required by Article 34 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Kharitonov v. Russia , no.   39898/03, § 19, 16 July 2009). 16.     Accordingly, the application must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 3 July 2025.     Martina Keller   Georgios A. Serghides   Deputy Registrar   President