CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 17 November 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 3948/14 Karen HARUTYUNYAN against Armenia lodged on 14 December 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Karen Harutyunyan, is an Armenian national who was born and lives in Yerevan. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 June 2011 the applicant concluded a preliminary agreement with a private company G. (“the company”), according to which the company was obliged to sell him an apartment. The company was involved in a civil dispute with L.A. concerning their property rights. On 4 October 2011 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) decided to approve a settlement agreement between the company and L.A., according to which the company undertook to provide her with an apartment in respect of which she would have ownership rights. That judgment became final and enforceable on the same day. The applicant was not involved in those proceedings, and apparently was not aware of them. Clause 2.4 of the settlement agreement contained assurances from the company that it did not have any preliminary agreements with a third party in respect of the apartment given to L.A., and that the property was not promised to anybody else. It appears that the apartment the company gave to L.A. under the judgment of 4 October 2011 was the same apartment which the company had undertaken to sell to the applicant under the preliminary agreement of 14 June 2011. In the meantime, a criminal investigation had been launched in respect of the chairman of the company in relation to various offences. On 21 August 2012 the investigator recognised the applicant as an aggrieved party within the criminal case. On 23 October 2012 the investigator granted the applicant’s application to recognise his relative as his representative. On 9 November 2012 the investigator informed the applicant’s representative about the completion of the investigation and his right to access the criminal case material. The applicant’s representative stated in writing that he did not wish to access the criminal case material at that point in time. However, he did access it on 18 January 2013. On 25 March 2013 the applicant filed an out-of-time appeal with the Civil Court of Appeal under Article 207 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”), seeking to reverse the judgment of 4 October 2011 and submitting that that judgment had determined his property rights without his involvement. He explained that he had learned of the judgment on 18   January 2013 when his representative had been examining the criminal case material at the District Court. On 15 April 2013 the Civil Court of Appeal declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible, on the grounds that he had missed the three-month deadline for lodging such an appeal prescribed by Article 207 § 5 of the CCP. It stressed that his arguments as to why his appeal should be admitted were ungrounded, because, taking into account that he had been involved in the criminal case as an aggrieved party since 21 August 2012 and his representative had been granted access to the criminal case material on 9   November 2012, he had had the opportunity to find out about the judgment of 4 October 2011 by accessing the criminal case material at an earlier stage, which he had failed to do. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law against that decision. On 29 May 2013 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. B.     Relevant domestic law Article 207 § 5 of the CCP (in force since 1 January 1999) prescribes that persons who have not been involved as parties to proceedings, but whose rights and obligations have been affected by a court judgment, are entitled to lodge an appeal within three months of the date on which they became aware, or ought to have become aware, of the adoption of that judgment. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a breach of his right of access to court to challenge a judgment which determined his property rights without his knowledge or involvement. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the denial of access to the Civil Court of Appeal in breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?