The
Human Rights Defender considers that the raise of state duty rates for filing
court applications from 2 to 10 times is problematic. This can have negative
implications on the limited rights for judicial protection and result in
unwarranted restrictions on the right of access to courts. This in turn may
impede the procedure of applying to judicial protection on the matter of human
rights violations.
The
draft law On Making Amendments and Additions to the Armenian Law on State Duty
proposes to increase the state duty rates for filing lawsuits, applications,
appeal, and cassation complaints against judicial acts. It is also proposed to
increase the state duty rates for providing copies of documents issued by the
court and the computer records of the court hearings.
In
particular,
·
the
minimum threshold of state duty will increase from 1.500 to 6.000 drams,
·
for
lawsuits on non-monetary claims from 4.000 to 20.000 drams,
·
for
appellate complaints on non-monetary claims from 10.000 to 30.000 drams,
·
in
case of cassation appeals from 20.000 to 40.000 drams,
·
for
complaints on the declaration of bankruptcy of legal entities from 500.000 to
1.000.000 drams,
·
for
establishing legal facts from 2.000 to 20.000 drams.
Certain
current privileges concerning state duties are abolished.
Furthermore,
the justifications for a several-fold increase of current state
duty rates are at least puzzling in the sense that it creates an impression the
required expenses for ensuring the smooth functioning of courts may be covered only
through the funds from state duties. In the meantime, funds are allocated to
the Judicial Department of Armenia under the Armenian Law On State Budget every
year for ensuring the smooth functioning of courts. The entire society is the
beneficiary for the administration of justice, hence, it is unreasonable to
place the entire burden of expenses for ensuring the smooth functioning of
courts only upon the parties to proceedings, especially when this will restrict
the right of access to courts.
Тhe
Draft, inter alia, mentions the minimum wage rate as a justification for
increasing state duty rates that comprised 13.000 Armenian drams as of 2003 and
increased by 5.2 times, up to 68.000 drams as of 2020. The analysis of the
Human Rights Defender’s Office indicates that the prices for consumer goods,
services, etc. have increased in parallel with the increase of the minimum wage
from 2003 to 2020. This means that the rates of minimum and average monthly
wage or the market basket price are not per se sufficient for justifying the
raise of the state duty rates.
The
justifications of the Draft provide that the expenses for justice system
administration have exceeded the state duty fees collected by courts by four
times or more. Nevertheless, under the Armenian Civil Procedure Code adopted in
2018, mechanisms called to significantly reduce the expenses of justice system
administration were introduced. Hence, it is clear that in the context of
current regulations the procedure for notice of hearing was significantly
simplified, which implies the reduction of expenses for notices of hearing.
Another
amendment also abolishes certain privileges concerning state duty. This leads
to a situation where individuals and non-profit organizations are not exempted
from paying state duty for a complaint challenging the competent authority’s
decision on an administrative offense, issues on repealing decision on
dismissing a case or dropping a suit, injunctive relief or changing the type of
injunctive relief, etc.
It
is also problematic that the justifications of the Draft lack any reflection on
the need of abolishing the mentioned privileges (apart from challenging the
competent authority’s decision on an administrative offense). In connection
with this practice, the Human Rights Defender provided that any amendment or
modification to the Draft should have been properly substantiated, especially
in case of regulations that may interfere with a person’s rights or otherwise
impair the situation. Hence, it is essential to rule out cases where a
provision of current regulation is modified, amended or abolished without
providing any justification for that necessity.
According
to the Defender, the provisions of the Draft abolishing the current privileges
on state duties for individuals and non-profit organizations are not justified.
The
Defender suggested reviewing and reduce the state duty rates prescribed by the
Draft, as well as preserve current privileges for paying the state duty.
The
opinion of the Defender is available here.
Հայերեն
