It is concerning that the newly set rates create barriers to
applying to court for the purpose of the protection of violated human rights
and lead to unreasonable restrictions on court access.
In particular, on October 29, 2021, the amendments to the
Law on State Duties entered into force, which significantly increased the state
duty rates for lawsuits, appeals, court appeals, as well as the pictures
relevant in the case. The state duty rates for issuing photocopies, recordings,
videos, and the electronic storage devices where they are kept also been
increased.
For example, the minimum state duty threshold has increased
from 1,500 AMDs to 6,000 AMDs, lawsuits for non-monetary applications from 4000
AMDs to 20,000 AMDs, the fees for appeals on non-monetary claims from 10,000
AMDs to 30,000 AMDs, for appeals to the court of cassation from 20,000 AMDs to
40,000 AMDs, the fee for bankruptcy applications of 500,000 AMDs to 1,000,000
AMDs, the fees for applications for confirmation of facts of legal significance
from 2,000 AMDS to 20,000 AMDs, etc. Some exemptions from state duty fees have
also been abolished.
In their application to the Constitutional Court, the Human
Rights Defender specifically referred to the justifications for increasing the
state duty rates several times, which were presented during the adoption of the
draft. These justifications are presented in such a way as if it is only possible
to cover the expenses necessary for ensuring the normal functioning of the
courts only by increasing the amount of state duties.
This implies that, the more the state duty rates are
increased, the faster and easier the problems of the judicial system will be
solved.
In fact, the way to
solve these issue is not to increase the state duties, but to allocate money to
the Judicial Department of the Republic of Armenia to ensure the normal
operation of the courts, according to the Law on State Budget of the Republic
of Armenia (which is done every year).
In other words, the beneficiary of justice is the whole
society; therefore, it is not right to put the entire burden of paying the
necessary expenses to ensure the normal operation of the courts only on the
participants of the trial. This way will simply lead to the restriction of the
constitutional and internationally guaranteed right to access to a court.
The issues of improving the logistics of the courts,
increasing the number of judges and the servants attached to them, improving
their social guarantees, including improvement of their remuneration, and
promoting the recruitment of new cadres into the judiciary should not be the
basis for creating structures restricting human and constitutional rights, guaranteeing
the protection of which and preventing their violation should be one of the
primary priorities of the state.
It is also not acceptable to cite the changes in the minimum
wage as a justification for raising the state duty rates, which amounted to
13,000 AMD in 2003, and 68,000 AMD and in 2020, and increase of 5.2 times.
The analysis of the Office of the Human Rights Defender shows
that in the period from 2003 to 2021, along with the increase in the minimum
wage, the prices of consumer goods, services, etc. also increased, which means
that only the minimum or average monthly wage indicators, and the value of the
minimum consumer basket are not sufficient to justify the increase in state
duty rates.
Such issues need to be addressed through mechanisms that do
not disproportionately restrict the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the
individual. Addressing existing issues in the state system by increasing the
amount of duties and restricting human rights is an absolutely unacceptable
approach.
Therefore, in the application we have substantiated with
concrete facts that the new, higher rates of the state duty lead to the
disproportionate interference of the constitutional right to judicial
protection. Moreover, upon the application of the Human Rights Defender to the
Constitutional Court, the regulation fixing the payment fee of the electronic
storage device is disputed in full.
In the application, the Human Rights Defender petitioned to
suspend the validity of Articles 9 and 9.1 of the Law on State Duty of the
Republic of Armenia until the end of the trial in the Constitutional Court.
Հայերեն
