CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2019

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .s44D02341 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.4pt; font-size:8pt } .sC3F6206D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.7pt; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 18 June 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 685/16 Artak GEVORGYAN against Armenia and 6 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern decisions of the Criminal and Civil Courts of Appeal and the Court of Cassation whereby the applicants’ appeals were declared inadmissible on formal grounds. The appellate courts found that the applicants had failed to respect the one-month time-limit for lodging appeals. They reasoned in particular that the time-limits in question had started running from the date of the pronouncement of the contested judicial decisions, while the applicants argued that the time-limit had started running from the date of service of the contested decisions. In addition, in some of the applications the applicants complain of refusals by the appellate courts to admit appeals also because the applicants had failed to file applications seeking an extension of the one-month time-limit, whereas the domestic law did not contain such a requirement. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Was the alleged denial of access to the Civil and Criminal Courts of Appeal and the Court of Cassation in breach of the applicants’ rights guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, under the domestic law, what is the starting point for the calculation of the one-month time-limit for lodging an appeal, the date of the pronouncement or the date of service of the contested judicial acts? In any event, where appeals had been lodged within a period of one month from the date of service of the contested judicial act, were the applicants required to submit requests seeking to restore the time-limits for lodging an appeal? If so, which provisions of domestic law provided for such a requirement?   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name, date of birth, place of residence Represented by Domestic court Nature of the dispute Nature of the alleged violation   685/16 17/12/2015 Artak GEVORGYAN 09/02/1992 Yerevan Tigran SAFARYAN Court of Cassation Imposition of a fine Access to court denied on the grounds that the appeal on points of law was lodged out of time, as the one-month time-limit was considered to have started running from the date of pronouncement of the contested judicial act   15736/16 04/03/2016 Vachik KARAPETYAN 11/10/1964 Vanadzor Tigran YEGORYAN Court of Cassation Civil dispute Access to court denied on the grounds that the appeal on points of law was lodged out of time, as the one-month time-limit was considered to have started running from the date of pronouncement of the contested judicial act, and that the applicant had failed to submit an application seeking to restore the time-limit   24649/16 21/04/2016 Gor SHAKARYAN 16/05/1992 Yerevan Tigran YEGORYAN Court of Cassation Imposition of a fine Access to court denied on the grounds that the appeal on points of law was lodged out of time, as the one-month time-limit was considered to have started running from the date of pronouncement of the contested judicial act, and that the applicant had failed to submit an application seeking to restore the time-limit   25718/16 28/04/2016 Anik DAVTYAN 09/03/1938 Artashat Tigran YEGORYAN Civil Court of Appeal Civil dispute Access to court denied on the grounds that the appeal was lodged out of time, as the one-month time-limit was considered to have started running from the date of pronouncement of the contested judicial act   54620/16 01/09/2016 Zhorzh MINASYAN 25/05/1941 Yerevan Lilit MANASERYAN Court of Cassation Civil dispute Access to court denied on the grounds that the appeal on points of law was lodged out of time, as the one-month time-limit was considered to have started running from the date of pronouncement of the contested judicial act   77120/16 07/12/2016 Vahe BABAYAN 18/09/1969 Yerevan   Criminal Court of Appeal Criminal case Access to court denied on the grounds that the appeal was lodged out of time, as the one-month time-limit started running from the date of pronouncement of the contested judicial act   13116/18 02/03/2018 FOCUS ART NGO 13/09/2016 Yerevan   Ashot BOYAJYAN 21/01/1975 Yerevan Tigran YEGORYAN Court of Cassation Criminal case involving a civil claim Access to court denied on the grounds that the appeal on points of law was lodged out of time, as the one-month time-limit was considered to have started running from the date of pronouncement of the contested judicial act, and that the applicant had failed to submit an application seeking to restore the time-limit