CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 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 } .sBC0596D1 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:200%; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 7 June 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 18526/13 FIL LLC against Armenia lodged on 5 March 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, FIL LLC, is a commercial company registered in Yerevan. It is represented before the Court by Mr A. Kiviryan and Ms D. Grigoryan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 7 May 2007 the applicant company and company S. concluded a contract, under which the applicant company had to carry out construction work on the premises of company H. On 18 January 2008 the applicant company initiated compensation proceedings against company S. in the Yerevan Civil Court (“the Civil Court”), arguing that it had completed the construction work as required by the contract of 7 May 2007, but company S. had failed to make full payment for the work. On 21 January 2008 the Civil Court admitted the applicant company’s claim. On 20 February 2008 the Civil Court ordered a forensic technical examination of the construction work which the applicant company had carried out on the premises of company H., and stayed the proceedings. In particular, the court ordered the experts to measure the surface area of the construction work and assess the quality of the construction work carried out. On 11 March 2008 the expert in charge of conducting the forensic examination filed a letter with the Civil Court, stating that it was necessary for the Civil Court to ensure his access to the premises of company H. for the purposes of the examination, as that company was not a party to the civil proceedings. On 4 April 2008 the Civil Court resumed the proceedings and summoned company H. to the proceedings as a third party. On 15 May 2008 the Civil Court ordered a forensic technical examination of the construction work on the premises of company H., and again stayed the proceedings. On 28 October 2008 the expert concluded that, owing to the lack of opportunity to access the premises of company H., it had not been possible to carry out the forensic examination ordered by the Civil Court on 15 May 2008. On 19 November 2008 the Civil Court resumed the proceedings. On 19 February 2009 the Civil Court granted the applicant company’s claim. On 27 February 2009, due to reorganisation of the judiciary, the Civil Court decided to transfer the case to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan. On 4 March 2009 company S. appealed against the judgment of 19   February 2009. On 23 April 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case, reasoning, inter alia , that, in the absence of an expert conclusion on the questions asked by the Civil Court, that judgment was unfounded. On 29 July 2009 the Shengavit District Court of Yerevan took over the applicant company’s case. On 26 August 2009 the Shengavit District Court ordered a forensic technical examination of the construction work on the premises of company H., and stayed the proceedings. On 31 May 2010 the expert concluded that, owing to the lack of opportunity to access the premises of company H., it had not been possible to carry out the forensic examination ordered by the Shengavit District Court on 26 August 2009. On 7 June 2010 the Shengavit District Court resumed the proceedings. On 16 July 2010 the Shengavit District Court ordered a forensic technical examination of the construction work on the premises of company H., and stayed the proceedings. The court ordered that the forensic examination be carried out with the support of the Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Acts (“the DEJA”). On 21 June 2012 the expert concluded that, owing to the lack of access to the premises of company H., it had not been possible to carry out the forensic examination ordered by the Shengavit District Court on 16 July 2010. On 27 June 2012 the Shengavit District Court resumed the proceedings. On 3 October 2012 the applicant company filed additional submissions with the Shengavit District Court. On 5 March 2013 the applicant company lodged its application with the Court while the proceedings were still pending before the Shengavit District Court. COMPLAINTS The applicant company complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the length of the civil proceedings in his case. The applicant company also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that no effective remedies were available to it against undue delays in the civil proceedings.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a breach of the applicant company’s right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide information about the conduct and outcome of the civil proceedings following the introduction of the application. 2.     Did the applicant company have an effective remedy against undue delay in the civil proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?