CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 avril 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 118 April 2009 Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb v. Armenia - 11721/04 Decision 14.4.2009 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Refusal to grant a parliamentary election observer access to documents of an election committee: article   6 § 1 inapplicable   Facts :The applicant, an NGO which acted as an election observer at the parliamentary elections in May 2003, requested, by registered mail, the Central Election Committee (CEC) to provide it with a copy of various election-related documents. The Government argued that the letter in question had never been received by the CEC. Alleging that its requests had remained unanswered, the applicant contested the CEC’s inactivity before the courts. The first-instance court rejected its complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed against that decision, submitting copies of the relevant post-office receipts. Its appeal was dismissed on the ground that the post-office receipts could not serve as proof because there was no postmark on them. Submitting copies of the same post-office receipts with the postmarks on the back, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, but to no avail. Inadmissible :Article 6 – The documents which the applicant had sought to obtain did not contain any information concerning the applicant itself, but were necessary for the effective performance of its unremunerated public function as an election observer. The outcome of the proceedings in question was not decisive as regards the applicant’s rights in private law. The proceedings did not, therefore, concern the determination of the applicant’s “civil rights and obligations” and fell outside the scope of Article   6   §   1: incompatible ratione materiae . Article 10 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Even though the applicant appeared to have submitted to the Court of Cassation a copy of the receipts with the postmarks, that court’s jurisdiction extended only to points of law and did not include the examination of evidence or making findings of fact, which questions fell within the sole jurisdiction of the first-instance and appeal courts. Thus, as a result of the applicant’s failure to substantiate its case properly, its complaint had not been examined by the domestic courts on the merits: non-exhaustion of domestic remedies .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes