a) Armenia / b) Constitutional Court / c)  / d) 13-11-1998 / e) DCC-138 / f) On the conformity with the Constitution of Articles 71 and 93 of the Law on Joint-Stock Companies / g) Tegekagir (Official Gazette) / h) .


Keywords of the Systematic Thesaurus:


Fundamental Rights - General questions - Limits and restrictions.

Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights - Procedural safeguards, rights of the defence and fair trial - Access to courts.

Keywords of the alphabetical index:


Joint-stock companies, shareholders / Damages, claim, access to courts / Shareholder, general meeting, decision, appeal.




[ENG-ARM-A-38] Article 38 of the Constitution establishes everyone's right to defend in court their rights as provided by the Constitution and laws, without any restriction. The Constitution allows for the temporary restriction of this right, but only on the basis of [ENG-ARM-A-45] Article 45 of the Constitution. The legislative body may not restrict this right on other bases.




The petitioner's opinion is that Articles 71 and 93 of the Law on Joint-Stock Companies restrict the individual's right to defend his or her rights in court.


According to the challenged Article 71, a shareholder has the right to appeal in a court the decision adopted by a general meeting of company shareholders, if he has not participated in the meeting or has voted against that decision and that decision has violated his legal interests and rights.


According to the challenged Article 93, the company or company shareholders who own at least one percent of the company's shares have the right to pursue a claim in a court against members of the company's board or the executive director of the company for damages caused to the company.


The petitioner considered that the challenged provisions contradicted not only [ENG-ARM-A-38] Article 38 of the Constitution, but also [ENG-ARM-A-39] Article 39 of the Constitution, according to which «everyone is entitled to the restoration of any rights which may have been violated, as well as to a public hearing by an independent and impartial court, under the equal protection of the law and fulfilling all the demands of justice, to clear himself or herself of any accusation».


The Constitutional Court held that Article 71 contradicted  [ENG-ARM-A-38] Articles 38 and [ENG-ARM-A-39] 39 of the Constitution as the Constitution prohibits any restriction of Article 39 and permits the temporary restriction of Article 38 only on the bases prescribed by [ENG-ARM-A-45] Article 45 of the Constitution.


The Constitutional Court held that Article 93 of the Law was in compliance with the above-mentioned , as the challenged provision deprived shareholders who have at lease one percent shares of the right to pursue a claim in a court for damages caused not to them, but to the company.