Communicated on 23 September 2020
Published on 12 October 2020
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos. 11519/16 and 20348/18
Narek AYVAZYAN against Armenia
and Manvel TER-ARAKELYAN against Armenia
lodged on 6 February 2016 and 16 April 2018 respectively
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
Application no. 11519/16: The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, the applicant complains that his request for exemption from payment of court fees was refused by the domestic courts on the grounds that the information provided by him was insufficient to prove his difficult financial situation. As a result, the domestic courts refused to examine the merits of the applicant’s civil claim whereby he had sought damages as an injured party in the criminal proceedings.
Application no. 20348/18: The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of excessive court fees, to lodge an appeal against a judgment of 17 February 2017 of Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan. The applicant complains that his request to have postponed the payment of court fees in the amount of 115,103,005,71 Armenian drams (approximately 205,000 euros) which had been calculated on the basis of a fixed percentage, set out by law, of the sum at stake in civil proceedings involving pecuniary claims, was rejected by the Civil Court of Appeal as unsubstantiated. Consequently, his appeal was not examined on the merits. The applicant further complains that the imposition of such a disproportionate and excessive amount of court fees placed him at a disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent, a commercial bank, since the latter had allegedly been exempted from paying the court fees on a pro rata basis in the proceedings before the first instance court. Instead, it had been ordered to pay only 4,000 Armenian drams (approximately 8 euros) in respect of court fees, which corresponded to the rate of court fees payable for non‑pecuniary claims before first-instance courts.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Application no. 11519/16
Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, considering the domestic courts’ refusal of his request for exemption from payment of court fees? In particular, was this refusal based on convincing reasons (see, for example, Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001‑VI)?
Has a proper balance been secured between, on the one hand, the interest of the State in collecting court fees for dealing with court claims and, on the other hand, the interest of the applicant in vindicating his claim through the courts (see, for example, Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 9718/03, 26 July 2011; and Chorbadzhiyski and Krasteva v. Bulgaria, no. 54991/10, 2 April 2020)?
2. Application no. 20348/18
Given the amount of court fees required for the applicant to lodge an appeal against the judgment of 17 February 2017 of Kentron and Nork‑Marash District Court of Yerevan, was his right of access to a court, as secured by Article 6 § 1, respected (see, for example, Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001‑VI; Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 9718/03, 26 July 2011; and Chorbadzhiyski and Krasteva v. Bulgaria, no. 54991/10, 2 April 2020)? Furthermore, considering the method of calculation of the court fees which the applicant’s opponent was required to pay in the proceedings before the first-instance court, has there been a breach of the principle of equality of arms concerning the applicant’s effective enjoyment of his right of access to the Court of Appeal?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy