5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Yerevan. 6.  From 1986 to 2005 the applicant worked at Paren Scientific Production and Planning State Closed Joint-Stock Company (hereafter “the Company”). 7.  On 27 July 2001 a law was adopted defining the programme of privatisation of State property for the period from 2001 to 2003, which listed the Company as one of many State companies subject to privatisation. 8.  On 5 February 2004 the employees of the Company applied to the Government with a request that the Company’s property be privatised through a direct sale to them. This request was admitted and was being examined by the Government at the time of preparation of the draft Government decree concerning the privatisation of the Company’s shares. 9.  On 10 June 2004 the Government adopted a decree (hereafter, the Decree), paragraph 1.2 of which set out that the Company’s shares were to be privatised through a tender procedure. The Decree was submitted to the President of Armenia for approval. 10.  By a letter of 7 July 2004 the Department for Management of State Property (hereafter the “DMSP”) informed the Company’s employees that the relevant tender procedure was open to them. 11.  On an unspecified date, before the approval of the Decree by the President, a number of amendments were introduced, including amendments to paragraph 1.2. 12.  On 8 October 2004 the President of Armenia approved the Decree, whose amended paragraph 1.2 stipulated that the Company’s shares were to be privatised through a direct sale to a third person, A.K. 13.  On 1 December 2004 the Company’s employees, including the applicant, lodged jointly several claims with the Kentron and Nork‑Marash District Court of Yerevan against the Government and the DMSP seeking, inter alia, prohibition of the application of certain provisions of the Decree and recognition of their pre-emptive right to acquire the Company’s shares. On the same date the claims were admitted for examination. 14.  In the proceedings before the District Court, the plaintiffs lodged an additional claim, contesting the legality of the Decree and seeking partially to annul it. In particular, they claimed that the Decree had been adopted in violation of Sections 27 § 2, 38 § 2 and 68 §§ 4 and 7 of the Law on Legal Acts, Section 10 § 1 of the State Property Privatisation Act (hereafter “the Act”), and Articles 1, 5 and 8 of the Constitution. They also filed a motion requesting the court not to apply Article 160 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) to their claim for annulment, arguing that this provision violated their right of access to court, was unconstitutional and was incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. They also filed another motion requesting the court, in the alternative, to initiate constitutional review proceedings to examine the constitutionality of that provision. According to the applicant, the District Court never addressed those motions. 15.  On 25 January 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to dismiss all the claims as unsubstantiated except for the claim for annulment, in respect of which the District Court decided under Article 109 of the CCP to terminate the proceedings on the ground that it was not subject to examination by the courts of general jurisdiction. In doing so, the District Court referred to Article 15 § 2 of the Civil Code and paragraph 2 of Article 160 § 1 of the CCP. 16.  On 8 February 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal. 17.  On 6 June 2005 the applicant filed motions with the Civil Court of Appeal similar to those filed before the District Court. 18.  On 22 June 2005 the applicant also requested the Court of Appeal to order the DMSP to provide the originals or certified copies of certain documents relating to the preparation of the Decree. The request was granted but the Government apparently failed to comply with it. 19.  On 28 June 2005 the Court of Appeal examined all the claims, including the claim for annulment, and decided to dismiss them as unsubstantiated. In doing so, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Government of Armenia, as the owner of the Company, acted within its powers by disposing of it in a lawful manner, through adoption of the Decree subsequently ratified by the President. 20.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 21.  On 9 September 2005 the applicant filed a motion similar to those filed before the lower courts. 22.  On the same date the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal in its part relating to the claim for annulment and decided to terminate the proceedings in that part on the same grounds as the District Court. 23.  On 16 November 2006 the Constitutional Court found paragraph 2 of Article 160 § 1 of the CCP to be unconstitutional and declared it invalid.