Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VACHIK KARAPETYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 685/16

  GEVORGYAN v. ARMENIA and 6 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 15736/16

  the applications (nos. 15736/16, 24649/16 and 25718/16) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by three Armenian nationals ("the applicants"), on the various dates indicated in the appended table;.

  Application no. 24649/16 lodged by Mr Shakaryan.

  On 2 December 2013 the applicant (in application no. 24649/16) participated in a public protest and was "taken" to a police station for allegedly disobeying a lawful police order.

  Application no. 25718/16 lodged by Ms Davtyan.

  On 18 March 2013 the applicant (in application no. 25718/16) lodged a civil claim with the Ararat and Vayots Dzor Regional Court ("the Ararat Regional Court") against a private person, seeking compensation for defamation.

  Rn. 69 Although the applicability of Article 6 is not in dispute, the Court considers it necessary to address this issue of its own motion in relation to application no. 24649/16.

  (b) Application no. 24649/16.

  Rn. 78 The applicant in application no. 24649/16 contended that he had submitted a request to restore the time-limit when he had resubmitted his appeal on points of law on 9 September 2015.

  (c) Application no. 25718/16.

  Rn. 79 The applicant in application no. 25718/16 argued that the judgment of the Ararat Regional Court of 24 June 2015 had been served on her on 6 July 2015, and that she had lodged her appeal against it on 6 August 2015· She maintained that, in accordance with the Constitutional Court's decision of 16 October 2012 (Õ�Ô´Õˆ-1052), her appeal had been lodged within the prescribed one-month time-limit.

  Rn. 82 Regarding application no. 24649/16, the Government acknowledged that the applicant had initially requested the restoration of the missed time-limit when he had submitted his first appeal on points of law.

  Rn. 83 As regards application no. 25718/16, the Government conceded that the Civil Court of Appeal had erroneously indicated incorrect dates in its decision of 27 August 2015.

  15736/16 and 24649/16.

  15736/16 and 24649/16 is the timing of the service of the decisions subject to appeal and the implications for the time-limit for appeal.

  In application no. 15736/16 the applicant received the decision three days after its pronouncement (see paragraphs 8-9 above), while in application no. 24649/16 the applicant received it four days after its pronouncement (see paragraph 16 above).

  As noted above, in application no. 15736/16 the decision was served three days after its pronouncement (see paragraphs 8-9 above), and in application no. 24649/16 it was served four days after its pronouncement (see paragraph 16 above).

  In application no. 24649/16 the applicant's initial appeal was returned for the correction of procedural mistakes, and he was given three days to resubmit it.

  - Conclusion (applications nos. 15736/16 and 24649/16).

  (β) Application no. 25718/16.

  Rn. 108 In application no. 25718/16 the judgment of the Ararat Regional Court of 24 June 2015 was sent to the applicant on 2 July 2015 and was received by her on 6 July 2015, that is twelve days after its pronouncement (see paragraph 22 above).

  Rn. 116 Mr Shakaryan (the applicant in application no. 24649/16) did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.

  Rn. 117 Mr Karapetyan and Ms Davtyan (the applicants in applications nos. 15736/16 and 25718/16 respectively) each claimed 10, 000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

  15736/16 and 25718/16 were excessive.

  15736/16 and 25718/16 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

  Rn. 121 Ms Davtyan (the applicant in application no. 25718/16) claimed EUR 572 for legal services at the domestic level, submitting a legal services agreement whereby she undertook to pay 200, 000 Armenian drams for legal representation in the domestic proceedings.

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and the criteria established in its case-law, as well as the considerations set out in the preceding paragraph, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 400 to the applicant in application no. 25718/16 for costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to her.

  24649/16.

  25718/16.

• EGMR, 31.03.2020 - 55997/14

  DOS SANTOS CALADO c. PORTUGAL et 3 autres affaires

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 15736/16

  55997/14 and 3 others, § 156, 31 March 2020).
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 74209/16

  WILLEMS ET GORJON c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 15736/16

  When it rules on the proportionality of such restrictions, the Court pays particular attention to three criteria: (i) the foreseeability of the restriction; (ii) the question of who should bear the adverse consequences of errors made during the proceedings (ibid., §§ 90-95); and (iii) whether the restrictions in question can be regarded as "excessive formalism" (ibid., §§ 96-99; see also Willems and Gorjon v. Belgium, nos. 74209/16 and 3 others, § 80, 21 September 2021).

• EGMR, 29.11.2022 - 73274/17

  CELA v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 15736/16

  The Court will first assess whether the application of the time-limit for an appeal on points of law was foreseeable from the point of view of the applicants, having regard to the domestic procedural rules, the relevant Constitutional Court decisions and the particular circumstances of the case (see Zubac, cited above, § 87; Osu v. Italy, no. 36534/97, § 35, 11 July 2002; and Çela v. Albania, no. 73274/17, § 28, 29 November 2022).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 21613/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 15736/16

  These factors are characteristic of criminal penalties (see Galstyan, cited above, § 58; Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 42-43, 3 October 2013; Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, §§ 59 and 64-65, 19 November 2015).
• EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 15736/16

  These factors are characteristic of criminal penalties (see Galstyan, cited above, § 58; Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 42-43, 3 October 2013; Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, §§ 59 and 64-65, 19 November 2015).
• EGMR - 68271/14 (anhängig)

  HALL v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 15736/16

  68273/14 and 68271/14, § 75, 22 December 2020).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 5837/17

  NEW GENERATION HUMANITARIAN NGO v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 15 The general principles applicable to the examination of restrictions on access to superior courts were summarised in Zubac v. Croatia ([GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 78-88, 5 April 2018) and have been reiterated in Vachik Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia (no. 15736/16, §§ 86-87, 15 May 2025).
• EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 53846/16

  SARGSYAN v. ARMENIA

  In such circumstances, calculating the time-limit for appeal from the date of pronouncement had not been foreseeable (see Vachik Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 15736/16, §§ 94-101, 15 May 2025).
• EGMR, 30.04.2026 - 4892/16

  MINASYAN v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 23 In the leading case of Vachik Karapetyan and Others (nos. 15736/16 and 2 others, 15 May 2025), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to the present case (§§ 94-101).

• EGMR, 07.05.2026 - 47577/17

  MKRTUMYAN v. ARMENIA

  In view of the relevant domestic law and the Constitutional Court's decisions, the Court concluded in each such case that where a contested decision had been served belatedly, the applicants concerned could have reasonably expected that the missed time-limit for appeal would be restored and appeals lodged by them within one month of the date of the serving of the contested decision would be admitted for examination (see Vachik Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 15736/16, §§ 94-101, 15 May 2025).
• EGMR, 30.04.2026 - 31326/17

  ABRAHAMYAN v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 11 The relevant general principles applicable to the examination of restrictions on access to superior courts, including the foreseeability criterion, were summarised by the Court in Zubac v. Croatia ([GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 78-88, 5 April 2018) and have recently been reiterated in Vachik Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia (no. 15736/16, §§ 86-87, 15 May 2025).
• EGMR, 06.11.2025 - 54620/16

  MINASYAN v. ARMENIA

  Consequently, the Court found that in such circumstances, calculating the time-limit for appeal from the date of pronouncement had been unforeseeable (see Vachik Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 15736/16, §§ 94-101, 15 May 2025).
• EGMR - 14816/25 (anhängig)

  ŞİMŞEK v. TÜRKİYE

  In particular, having regard to the applicant's claim that his request and true intent were directed at the entirety of the trial court's ruling, and to Article 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that errors in specifying the legal remedy or the competent authority do not extinguish an accused's procedural rights, did the domestic courts' approach amount to excessive formalism (see, among others, Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 78-86, 5 April 2018; Vachik Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 15736/16, § 88, 15 May 2025; Walchli v. France, no. 35787/03, § 29, 26 July 2007; and Llavador Carretero v. Spain, no. 21937/06, §§ 22-23, 15 December 2009 )?.
• EGMR, 12.02.2026 - 77120/16

  BABAYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Constitutional Court also found, inter alia, that time-limits missed because of a delay in service of a decision subject to appeal had to be restored ex jure, without judicial discretion (see Vachik Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 15736/16, §§ 54-58, 15 May 2025).