CASE OF GHUYUMCHYAN v. ARMENIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)
Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano
5. The applicants are the son (the first applicant), the daughter-in-law (the second applicant) and the wife (the third applicant) of the late Garegin Ghuyumchyan. They were born in 1965, 1973 and 1947 respectively and live in Vanadzor, Armenia. The first and the third applicants are also Garegin Ghuyumchyan’s first heirs, according to the Armenian civil law. 6. The third applicant and Garegin Ghuyumchyan ran a printing house and a small spirit factory as a family business. 7. On 19 July 2002 Garegin Ghuyumchyan was charged with bribetaking and made an undertaking not to leave his residence. A truck and a television set belonging to him were seized. It appears that he then hired a defence lawyer. 8. On 25 September 2002 the investigating authority decided to dismiss the charge against Garegin Ghuyumchyan for lack of evidence, lifted the seizure and cancelled the undertaking. It appears that after the dismissal of the charge, Garegin Ghuyumchyan’s advocate refused to work with him any longer. 9. In 2004 Garegin Ghuyumchyan and the third applicant sold the family business to a private person. 10. On 29 October 2004 Garegin Ghuyumchyan instituted proceedings seeking compensation for wrongful prosecution. In particular, he claimed reimbursement for legal and transport costs. He also claimed compensation for the loss of his family business, alleging that as a result of the prosecution he could not run it and had to sell it at a low price. 11. On 9 January 2006 Garegin Ghuyumchyan supplemented his claim, alleging that as a result of the prosecution the first and the second applicants had had to leave their jobs. The first and the second applicants also joined the proceedings as third parties having additional claims. 12. On 18 May 2006 the Lori Regional Court granted the claim in part, ordering reimbursement of legal costs and part of the transport costs. As for the rest of the claim, the Regional Court dismissed it on the ground that there was no causal link between the sale of the business and Garegin Ghuyumchyan’s prosecution or between the first and the second applicants’ leaving their jobs and the prosecution. 13. It appears that on 26 July 2006 Garegin Ghuyumchyan lodged a request with the Chamber of Advocates of Armenia, seeking to receive legal aid. 14. On 27 July 2006 the Chairman of the Chamber of Advocates of Armenia informed him in a letter that the Advocacy Act did not provide for legal aid for the type of proceedings in which he was involved. 15. On 17 November 2006 Garegin Ghuyumchyan lodged a complaint with the Lori Regional Prosecutor’s Office alleging that on 4 October 2006 he had been beaten by the Head of the Lori Region of Armenia. The outcome of this complaint is unclear. 16. On an unspecified date Garegin Ghuyumchyan and the first applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court. 17. On 26 January 2007 the Civil Court of Appeal delivered its judgment upholding the judgment of the Regional Court in respect of the reimbursement of part of the travel costs as well as legal fees, but dismissing the rest of the claim. 18. On 22 June 2007 Garegin Ghuyumchyan lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. 19. By a letter of 28 June 2007 the Chief Registrar of the Court of Cassation returned the appeal, informing him that it had not been admitted for examination as it had not been lodged by an advocate licensed to act before the Court of Cassation, pursuant to Article 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicants alleged before the Court that their family could not afford the services of such an advocate. 20. On 29 October 2007 Garegin Ghuyumchyan and also the first and the second applicants lodged an introductory letter with the Court in which they complained under Article 6 § 1 that Garegin Ghuyumchyan had been denied access to the Court of Cassation, under Article 6 § 3 (c) that Garegin Ghuyumchyan’s defence lawyer had refused to represent him in the compensatory proceedings and that his request for legal aid had been rejected by the Chamber of Advocates. They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts had failed to grant the compensatory claim in full. 21. On 3 November 2007 Garegin Ghuyumchyan died of a heart attack. 22. On 10 May 2008 the applicants lodged their completed application with the Court.