a) Armenia / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 10-12-2013 / e) / f) On the conformity with the Constitution of the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Code / g) Tegekagir (Official Gazette) / h) .
Keywords of the Systematic Thesaurus:
Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights - Procedural safeguards, rights of the defence and fair trial - Effective remedy.
Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights - Procedural safeguards, rights of the defence and fair trial - Access to courts.
Keywords of the alphabetical index:
Right to judicial protection, access to court, limitations / Administrative procedure, excessive procedural responsibilities.
Consistent with the view of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the limitations on the access to court, the state may set conditions for the realisation of this right. The limitations should not, however, restrict the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Furthermore, the limitation shall persue a legitimate aim and proportional to the means employed, balanced with the objective sought. (Case of Khalfaoui v. France, application no. 3479/97, 14/03/2000.)
I. The applicant challenged the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Code obliging them to provide the Administrative Court with documents verifying receipt of the application and copies of the attached documents by the respondent. The applicant considered that this mandatory requirement was contrary to the right to judicial protection.
II. The Constitutional Court considered the meaning of the discussed requirement in the context of the right to judicial protection and access to court. Emphasising the importance of the creation and development of normative prerequisites guaranteeing the effective protection of human rights, the Court noted that none of the judicial peculiarities or proceedings shall obstruct the possibility to exercise the right to judicial protection or prevent it.
In light of the above, the Court held that requiring the application and copies of the attached documents to be sent to the respondent is legitimate, as it is an administrative procedure aimed at guaranteeing the effective realisation of the procedural rights and responsibilities of the other party. Regarding the requirement to submit the receipts and copies of the attached documents, however, the Court determined that the submission of the mentioned documents by the respondent excessively overloads the extent of the applicants procedural responsibilities.
Based on the aforementioned, the Court ruled that the challenged provisions concerning the requirement to provide the Administrative Court the documents indicating the receipt of the application and the attached documents by the respondent, does not have a legitimate aim. It makes access to the court complicated and jeopardises the full realisation of the constitutional right to judicial protection.
As a result, the Court declared the challenged provision to be in breach of the Constitution and therefore void.
The Court held that the challenged provision will become invalid on 1 July 2014.