Communicated on 21 March 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 4414/15
Nelli FLJYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 6 December 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nelli Fljyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Yerevan. She is represented before the Court by Mr K. Mezhlumyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 5 August 2013 the applicant initiated civil proceedings, seeking to protect her property rights. It appears from the documents filed with the court that she did not have a lawyer at that time.
On 19 November 2013 the applicant filed written submissions with the court. The document filed with the court contained a notice stating that the applicant had a lawyer.
On 29 November 2013 the trial court rejected the applicant’s claim.
On 19 February 2014 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal. The grounds of appeal filed with the court were signed only by the applicant’s lawyer. The document also indicated the address of the applicant’s lawyer for correspondence.
On 3 and 17 April 2014 the registry of the Civil Court of Appeal sent a notification to the address of the applicant’s lawyer, inviting him to participate in oral hearings before that court.
On 21 May 2014 the Civil Court of Appeal rejected the appeal filed by the applicant’s lawyer. It appears that the parties to the proceedings were absent during the pronouncement of that decision.
On the same day the registry of the Civil Court of Appeal sent its decision to the applicant’s postal address. The decision could be appealed against within one month of the date of the pronouncement.
On 24 June 2014 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an out-of-time appeal on points of law against the decision of 21 May 2014. He also filed an application seeking to restore the one-month time-limit for lodging an appeal on points of law, arguing that the contested decision had not been posted to him, even though it was he who had signed and lodged the appeal and indicated his address for correspondence. He further explained that, even though the applicant had received the contested decision on 24 May 2014, she had not informed him about it, assuming that it had also been served on him. He had eventually found out about that decision on 23 June 2014.
On 16 July 2014 the Court of Cassation rejected the application to restore the time-limit for filing the appeal on points of law as unfounded. It also declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible as lodged out of time.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Code of Civil Procedure (in force since 1 January 1999)
In accordance with Article 39 § 1, individuals may conduct their court cases on their own or through their representatives.
In accordance with Article 78 § 3, judicial notifications shall be sent to the address indicated by a participant in the proceedings.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right of access to court was breached because she was deprived of the opportunity to lodge an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Civil Court of Appeal of 21 May 2014.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the applicant’s right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, breached by the fact that her appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible as lodged out of time? In this context, the Government are requested to explain on what grounds a copy of the decision of the Civil Court of Appeal of 21 May 2014 was posted to the applicant’s address as opposed to that of her representative.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy