Communicated on 18 September 2017
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 69464/14
Artashes ARTASHESYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 8 October 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Artashes Artashesyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Vanadzor.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was previously employed by the State Revenue Service (“the SRS”).
In May 2011 the SRS notified the applicant about the possibility that his employment would be terminated as of 30 June 2011 on the basis of staff cutbacks resulting from structural changes in the SRS. The notification also informed the applicant that, in the event that his employment was terminated, he would be offered another job.
On 30 June 2011 the head of the SRS issued a decision terminating the applicant’s employment.
On 17 February 2012, following an exchange of correspondence with the SRS, during which the latter refused to explain the legal grounds for making the staff cutbacks, the applicant filed an appeal with the SRS, seeking to quash its decision of 30 June 2011 on the basis that it was unlawful. The applicant argued that since the SRS had failed to produce legal grounds for the staff cutbacks, the decision of 30 June 2011 terminating his employment on account of staff cutbacks lacked any legal basis.
On 27 February 2012 the SRS decided to return the applicant’s appeal, reasoning that it lacked the authority to examine it.
On 27 March 2012 the applicant filed a claim with the Administrative Court, seeking to quash the decision of 27 February 2012 and oblige the SRS to institute an administrative procedure on the basis of his appeal of 17 February 2012, with a view to determining the lawfulness of terminating his employment on 30 June 2011.
On 25 September 2012 the Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim. It reasoned that the decision of the SRS of 27 February 2012 had breached his right to an effective legal remedy, including administrative remedies, under Article 18 of the Constitution. It also stressed that, under section 70 of the Law on the Principles of Administration and Administrative Procedure, the applicant had the right to appeal the decision of 30 June 2011 either before an administrative body or a court. As the applicant had chosen to appeal against the impugned decision before an administrative body, the SRS had had the authority to examine his appeal. The Administrative Court obliged the SRS to institute an appeal procedure and examine the applicant’s appeal of 17 February 2012.
On 16 October 2012 the SRS appealed against that judgment, arguing that it had acted as an employer and not as a body of the executive branch of government when it had terminated the applicant’s employment. As a result, the dispute was of a civil law nature and fell within the competence of the courts of general jurisdiction.
On 24 January 2013 the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment of 25 September 2012.
On 8 February 2013 the SRS filed an appeal on points of law, raising similar arguments.
On 4 July 2013 the Court of Cassation delivered its decision. As regards admissibility, it noted that the reason for admitting the appeal on points of law had been the necessity to ensure the uniform application of administrative and civil legislation concerning employment disputes, as well as the jurisdictions of the courts – in terms of subject matter – in disputes concerning the employment of public servants. As regards the merits, the Court of Cassation decided to quash the decision of 24 January 2013 and terminate the administrative proceedings. It reasoned that, since the applicant’s employment had been terminated on the basis of staff cutbacks, grounds which were of a civil or labour law nature, the dispute was not within the competence of the administrative courts.
On 31 July 2013 the applicant filed a civil claim with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”), seeking to quash the decision of the SRS of 30 July 2011 and obtain compensation until he was reinstated in his position. The applicant argued, inter alia, that, in accordance with judicial practice before the decision of the Court of Cassation of 4 July 2013, disputes concerning public service had been within the competence of the Administrative Court. In support of his assertion, the applicant referred to another administrative case, A.H. v. the Head of Lori Region (No. 6/0001/05/12), concerning the termination of a public servant’s employment on the grounds of staff cutbacks, which had been heard by the Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal, with the Court of Cassation delivering its final decision on 16 January 2013. The applicant submitted that the first time when the Court of Cassation had decided that such disputes fell within the jurisdiction of the courts of general jurisdiction had been in its decision of 4 July 2013.
On 3 September 2013 the Minister of Finance, who was involved in the proceedings as a third party, filed an application with the District Court seeking the application of the statute of limitations with regard to the applicant’s claim. In particular, he stressed that Article 265 § 1 of the Labour Code prescribed a one-month time-limit for filing a court claim in an employment dispute, starting from the moment an employee received the relevant individual decision.
On 17 October 2013 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. It granted the Minister of Finance’s application and applied the statute of limitations, finding that the applicant had missed the deadline for lodging a civil claim with the court.
On 14 November 2013 the applicant appealed against that judgment.
On 20 February 2014 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 17 October 2013. Relying on the one-month time-limit prescribed by Article 265 § 1 of the Labour Code, it concluded that, even though the applicant had been aware of the potential breach of his labour rights since July 2011, he had only instituted court proceedings on 31 July 2013.
On 17 March 2014 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. He argued, in particular, that he had respected the one-month time-limit prescribed by Article 265 § 1 of the Labour Code, as he had lodged his claim with the District Court within one month of the date of the decision of the Court of Cassation on 4 July 2013, the date when he had become aware that he had to protect his rights in a court of general jurisdiction. The applicant submitted that before that date, disputes concerning the termination of a public servant’s employment on the grounds of staff cutbacks had fallen within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court, while the one-month time-limit prescribed by the Labour Code did not apply to administrative disputes.
On 9 April 2014 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. The 2005 Constitution
In accordance with Article 18 of the 2005 Constitution, everyone is entitled to effective legal remedies to protect his or her rights and freedoms before judicial and other public bodies.
2. Labour Code (in force since 2004)
Article 264 § 1 provides that labour disputes are subject to determination by a court, in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
Article 265 § 1 provides that an employee has the right to file a court claim challenging the termination of his or her employment within a month of receiving the relevant individual decision.
3. Law on the Principles of Administration and Administrative Procedure (in force since 2004)
Section 70 provides that an administrative act may be appealed before administrative or judicial bodies. In the case of an administrative appeal, an appeal may be lodged with the body which issued the contested decision, or with a superior body.
4. The administrative case of A.H. v. the Head of Lori Region (No. 6/0001/05/12)
The case concerned the termination of a public servant’s employment at the Lori regional authority on the ground of staff cutbacks. The case was examined by the Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal under the Code of Administrative Proceedings, and their judgments were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 16 January 2013.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to a court was breached, as he was deprived of the opportunity to have the decision of the SRS of 30 June 2011 terminating his employment reviewed by domestic courts.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the failure to examine the applicant’s employment dispute in breach of his right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? The Government are asked to explain whether employment disputes such as that of the applicant were determined in accordance with the rules of administrative or civil procedure prior to the decision of the Court of Cassation of 4 July 2013, and to submit examples of relevant domestic practice.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy