CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 31 May 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2126/12 Arusyak PETROSYAN against Armenia lodged on 6 December 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms. Arusyak Petrosyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Yerevan. She is represented before the Court by Ms. S. Safaryan and Ms. A. Harutyunyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2009 the mayor of Yerevan initiated civil proceedings in the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, seeking to terminate an agreement with a private company V. (“the Company”) and damages. The agreement had authorised the Company to act on behalf of the State and conclude contracts with individuals upon the termination of their property rights in respect of real estate expropriated for State needs, and provide them with apartments as compensation for the expropriated property. On 19 April 2011 the District Court decided to join the applicant to the civil proceedings as a third party, as she had concluded a contract with the respondent Company, which had been obliged to provide her with an apartment in respect of which she had already acquired ownership rights. On 28 April 2011 the District Court allowed the mayor’s claim, invalidated the disputed agreement and ordered the Company to pay compensation to the State for failure to discharge its contractual duties. On 27 May 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 28 April 2011. On 28 June 2011 the Civil Court of Appeal declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible on the basis that she had failed to attach proof to her appeal that she had notified the other parties to the proceedings. On 8 July 2011 the Civil Court of Appeal provided the applicant with a list containing the names and addresses of the other parties for notification. The applicant sent notifications to the other parties in accordance with the list and filed her appeal against the judgment of 28 April 2011 again. On 15 July 2011 the Civil Court of Appeal declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible on the basis that she had failed to attach proof to her appeal that she had notified two of the parties. It appears that the parties referred to had not been included in the list of 8 July 2011. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of 15 July 2011 arguing, inter alia , that she could not have notified the two individuals indicated by the Civil Court of Appeal, as their names and addresses had not been on the list of 8 July 2011. On 14 September 2011 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that her right of access to court was breached because she was deprived of the opportunity to appeal against the judgment of 28 April 2011.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the denial of access to the Civil Court of Appeal in breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?