ARM-2012-3-003

a) Armenia/ b) Constitutional Court/ c) / d) 23.10.12/ e) On the conformity with the Constitution of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code/ g) Tegekagir (Official Gazette)/ h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:

Constitutional Justice – The subject of review–Legislative provisions.

Institutions – State, judicial power

Fundamental Rights – Civil rights – Right to access to court, right to judicial protection

Fundamental Rights- Right to appeal

Keywords of the alphabetical index:

Right to access to court, right to judicial protection, right to appeal, time-limit for appeal,

Headnote

Constitutional Court noted that the effective realization of the right to judicial protection through appeal of the judicial act of inferior courts depends on the circumstance of accessibility of the appealed judicial act to the interested person, and in what reasonable duration of time the interested person may present grounded appeal for the judicial protection of his rights. In this regard the Court stated that the appealer should dispose the appealed judicial act in order to be able to ground the breach of material or procedural law and its effect on the outcome of the case, or the fact or the possibility of emergence of grievous consequences in the appeal.

Summary

The applicant argued the regulation on which the calculation of time-limit for appeal begins “from the moment of announcement” enshrined in Criminal Procedure Code. To the applicant the court legitimately announces only the final part of the judicial act, simultaneously the calculation of time-limit for appeal commences form the moment of its announcement, as a result the time-limit begins to flow on the one hand, on the other hand the appealer does not yet have the substantive part of the act, which includes necessary data for the appeal. This means that the appealer does not have real possibility for appeal. The applicant also argued the regulation to which application for the appeal of the decision on rejection of recognition the time-limit for appeal to be respectable, shall be presented to those judge who held such decision.

The Constitutional Court considered whether the guarantee for the protection of the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the consideration of the omitted time to be respectable completely ensures the constitutional right to judicial protection. The Court stated that the legislature has endowed the courts with broad discretion to define the omitted time respectable or not. In this regard the Court stated that this regulation does not ensure the effective realization of the right to judicial protection, as it leads to uncertainty. The Court also stated that in all those cases when the omission of time-limit for the appeal is caused by the reasons irrespective of the appealer’s wish, the courts shall recognize the time-limit omission to be respectable.

In connection with constitutionality of the first and second parts of Article 380 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Constitutional Court found that the legislative regulation in accordance with which the application for the appeal of the decision on rejection of recognition the time-limit for appeal to be respectable, shall be presented to those judge who held such decision, is within the discretion of the legislature. The Constitutional Court considered the right to appeal of that decision to be essential guarantee in the framework of the mentioned regulation. In this regard the Constitutional Court stated that the commencement of the time for bringing appeal against the decisions on rejection of the recognition of the omitted time to be respectable shall be counted from the moment the appealer factually receives the judicial act or from the moment the judicial act in fact may become accessible to the addressee by law.

The Constitutional Court noted that calculation of time-limit for appeal from the moment of the announcement of judicial act, per se, is acceptable. Within this regulation the Article 402 of Criminal Procedure Code, in accordance with which the judicial act shall be sent to the participants of the procedure, is in systemic correlation with challenged norms, and the notion “is sent” shall be interpreted and implemented as “is handed”.