CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 11 mai 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s219F7A6C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:180pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   384 11.05.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   ADMISSIBILITY DECISION GERAGUYN KHORHURD PATGAMAVORAKAN AKUMB v. ARMENIA   On 14 April 2009, a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has declared inadmissible the application lodged in the case of Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb v. Armenia (application no. 11721/04) concerning the applicant organisation’s request to have access to documents relating to the 2003 parliamentary elections. (The decision is available only in English).   The applicant   The applicant organisation, Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb, is a non-governmental organisation which was established in 1997 and has its registered office in Yerevan (Armenia).   Summary of the facts   The applicant organisation acted as an election observer during the parliamentary election held in Armenia on 25 May 2003; it subsequently tried to obtain access to a number of documents related to these elections. In the pre-election stage, it had revealed misuse of pre-election funds.   The applicant organisation alleged that it had applied to the Central Election Committee (“the CEC”) on 26 May 2003 via registered mail requesting copies of documents on the parliamentary elections; the Armenian Government contested that allegation.   On 19 June 2003, the District Court dismissed the applicant organisation’s request in which it sought to challenge the CEC’s alleged inaction and to oblige it to provide the requested documents. Two hearings were held by the District Court in the absence of the applicant organisation as it had allegedly not been notified.   On 12 December 2003, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant organisation’s appeal, reiterating the findings of the Court of Appeal that the organisation had failed to prove that it had sent its letter of 26 May 2003 to the CEC, post office receipts without postmarks not being considered proper evidence.   Complaints   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant organisation complained that it had had no access to the materials of the case file, had not been notified of the court hearings, and that their evidence had been ignored. Under Article 10 (freedom of expression) it complained that its right to receive and impart information had been violated by the actions of the CEC, and, under Article 3 of Protocol   No 1 (right to free elections), that provisions of the Electoral Code had been violated by the CEC concerning in particular the rights of election observers.   Procedure   The application was lodged on 13 March 2004.   Decision of the Court [1]   Article 6 § 1 The Court reiterated that, in order to ascertain whether a case concerned the determination of a civil right under Article 6 § 1, only the character of the right at issue was relevant. The applicant organisation’s right of access to election-related documents had constituted a part of a wider public function, that of election observer, which aimed to ensure publicity of an election and its proper conduct. The documents sought had not contained any information on the applicant organisation itself and had not been necessary for its public function. The Court therefore considered that the outcome of the proceedings in question had not been decisive for the applicant organisation’s rights under private law but rather for the effective performance of its public function as an election observer. The Court therefore concluded that the proceedings had not concerned the determination of the applicant organisation’s “civil rights and obligations” and fell outside the scope of Article 6 § 1.   Article 10 Article 3 of Protocol   No 1 As the applicant organisation had not provided adequate evidence to substantiate its case, its complaint about the CEC’s alleged failure to respond to its request for information was not examined by the domestic courts on the merits. The applicant organisation had therefore failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 4. Accordingly, that part of the application had to be rejected. The complaint under Article 3 of Protocol   No 1 was also declared inadmissible for the same reasons.   *** The decision is available today on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.