The Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia, in its judicial act dated November 02, 2021 / No. ЕД/30236/02/18, addressed the question of whether a person must submit a request for the application of an exemption from state duty if the claim or application is submitted by a person who, in accordance with the law, represents another person (or persons) whose rights and legitimate interests are protected by law.
According to the principle set forth in Article 1(a) of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Recommendation No. R(95)5 dated February 07, 1995, there must be an opportunity for the higher court (second instance court) to review any decision of the lower court (first instance court). This means that judicial control over the acts of the first instance courts must be carried out in such a way as to ensure the possibility of reviewing a judicial act subject to appeal in accordance with the procedural law by the higher court (second instance court). That is, when the state judicial system has a three-tier structure, a person must have the right to be heard in at least two instances.
Therefore, the Supreme Court finds that courts cannot create formal obstacles that may result in the violation of individuals' right to have a judicial act reviewed in accordance with the law (see, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia dated December 07, 2018, in the civil case No. ЕАНД/0563/02/16, Zhanna Teryan vs. Vahan Teryan and Vahan Teryan vs. Zhanna Teryan).
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia has previously noted in its decision that one of the important components of the right to judicial protection of a person, enshrined in the relevant articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and the Convention, is the right to appeal judicial acts. The institution of appeal is a legal remedy that allows for the practical identification and correction of judicial errors through a specific procedure, thereby contributing to the practical realization of the goals of justice (see, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia dated November 27, 2015, in the civil case No. АРАД/0170/02/14, Susanna Ararat Mirzoyan vs. Susanna Mihrani Mirzoyan, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia dated March 04, 2015, in the administrative case No. ВД3/0347/05/13, Fast Supply LLC vs. the State Revenue Committee of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia dated April 19, 2019, in the civil case No. ЕД/17609/02/18, Vardan Abrahamyan vs. Ardshinbank CJSC).
In the context of the aforementioned legal positions, addressing the question raised by this decision, the Supreme Court notes the following.
According to part 7 of Article 2 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, the rights and legitimate interests of minors, incapacitated persons, or persons recognized as having limited capacity are represented in court by their parents (guardians), custodians, or trustees, respectively.
According to part 1 of Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, every person has the right to apply to the court in accordance with the procedure established by the same code for the protection of their rights and legitimate interests established by the Constitution, laws, and other legal acts or provided for by contract.
According to part 2 of Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, in cases provided for by law, persons who have such rights or authority by law have the right to apply to the court for the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of other persons.
According to part 1 of Article 50 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, the legal representative of a minor, incapacitated person, or person recognized as having limited capacity acts in court on behalf of that person: the parent (adoptive parent), guardian, or custodian.
According to Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, court costs consist of state duty (...).
According to part 1 of Article 102 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, the objects of state duty collection, the amount of state duty, and the procedure for payment are established by the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty".
According to part 4 of Article 102 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, the relations related to exemption from state duty payment, postponement of state duty payment, and reduction of the amount and rate of state duty are regulated by the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty".
According to part 1 of Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, participants in the case have the right to have the judicial acts of the first instance court reviewed in accordance with the procedure established by the same code in the cases and manner provided for by law.
According to part 1 of Article 368 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, the appeal is drawn up in writing, observing the requirements specified in part 2 of Article 16 of the same code.
According to point 7 of part 2 of Article 368 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, the list of documents attached to the appeal is indicated, and according to part 5 of the same article, evidence of payment of state duty (...) is attached to the appeal. In cases where the law provides for an exemption from state duty payment, the appeal must include a request regarding this if the appellant is not exempt from the obligation to pay state duty. Other requests of the appellant may be attached to the appeal.
According to point 1 of part 1 of Article 371 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, if there are no grounds for rejecting the acceptance of the appeal, the appeal is returned if the requirements of Article 368 of the same code are not met.
According to point 4 of part 1 of Article 371 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, if there are no grounds for rejecting the acceptance of the appeal, the appeal is returned if the appellant has submitted a request for postponement of state duty payment or reduction of its amount, which has been rejected.
According to part 2 of Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty", the state duty in the Republic of Armenia is a mandatory payment established by law, paid by individuals and legal entities to the state and/or community budgets for services or actions provided for by the same law, related to the exercise of the powers of state bodies.
According to point (a) of Article 4 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty", the state duty is collected in the Republic of Armenia for claims, applications (...), and appeals against judicial acts of the court (...).
According to Article 21 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty", the following exemptions from state duty may be established: a) exemption from state duty payment (...).
At the time of the emergence of the legal relationship, according to point (e) of part 1 of Article 22 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty", claimants are exempt from state duty payment in cases provided for by law for applications submitted to the court for the protection of the rights and interests of other persons protected by law.
A similar provision is also provided in point 6 of part 1 of Article 22 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty", according to which claimants are exempt from state duty payment in cases provided for by law for claims (applications) submitted to the court for the protection of the rights and interests of other persons protected by law (...).
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia, in the framework of decision No. СԴО-890 dated May 25, 2010, noted that the fulfillment of the constitutional obligation to pay state duty is closely related to the possibility of exercising a person's constitutional right to apply to the court, emphasizing that the obligation to pay state duty in courts does not aim to deprive a person of their constitutional right to apply to the court. (...) Moreover, the relevant exemptions include, among other things, the possibility of being completely exempt from state duty.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia has previously noted that judicial protection of rights also requires certain expenses, part of which the legislator has included in the composition of judicial costs. Therefore, judicial costs are the amounts spent and subject to collection for necessary measures during the civil case, which are necessary for initiating and subsequently examining the civil case based on the submitted claims and applications. Accordingly, the legislator has established that evidence of payment of state duty in the prescribed amount (or a relevant request for any exemption from state duty) must be submitted, which, in turn, along with compliance with other requirements established by law regarding the form and content of the claim (application, appeal, or cassation appeal), is the basis for starting the further examination of the case and carrying out other procedural processes.
At the same time, in this decision, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia also noted that the legislator, based on the principle of accessibility of judicial protection, has established the types of exemptions from state duty in separate articles. In other words, the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty" not only establishes the objects of state duty collection, the rates of state duty payment in courts, but also clarifies the exemptions applied regarding state duty in courts, which are aimed at the full realization of the right to judicial protection guaranteed by part 1 of Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and point 1 of Article 6 of the Convention (see, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia dated August 14, 2020, in the civil case No. ЕАКД/2005/02/17, Hasmik Zatikyan vs. Petros Sargsyan, Marianna Sargsyan).
In another decision, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia noted that the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty" provides for two procedures for the application of exemptions from state duty in court: by law and at the discretion of the court. Thus, Article 22 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty" exhaustively states the grounds under which a subject seeking judicial protection is exempt from state duty payment by law. The presence of any of these grounds does not require the interested person to submit a request for the application of an exemption from state duty and for its discussion and resolution by the court. (...) (see, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Armenia dated January 22, 2014, in the civil case No. АРД/0913/02/12, Shamam Karapetyan vs. Arayik Mirzoyan).
Summarizing the above, the Supreme Court finds it necessary to state that in the presence of the grounds established by Article 22 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty", a person is exempt from state duty payment by law; therefore, the application of an exemption from state duty cannot be left to the discretion of the court. Accordingly, in all cases where a person is exempt from state duty payment by law under any of the grounds established by Article 22 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty", the person should not submit a request for exemption from state duty payment, as its submission is already moot for the aforementioned reason.
Addressing the ground for exemption from state duty established by Article 22 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty", when the claim or application is submitted by a person who is authorized by law to represent another person (or persons) whose rights and legitimate interests are protected by law, the Supreme Court finds that the exemption from the obligation to pay state duty for the aforementioned persons is not an end in itself.
The Supreme Court's conclusion is based on the fact that the legislator has essentially exempted from state duty payment those claimants who are not parties to the substantive legal relationship in the initiated claim and who, in accordance with the law, represent the rights and legitimate interests of other persons (e.g., minors, incapacitated persons, persons recognized as having limited capacity, etc.) in the proceedings and for their benefit. In other words, these are claimants who are legally authorized to represent the judicial protection of the rights and legitimate interests of other persons, as the latter cannot independently exercise their right to judicial protection due to health, age, and other reasons.
Therefore, exempting claimants who represent the rights and legitimate interests of other persons from state duty arises from the vulnerable social status of minors, incapacitated persons, and persons recognized as having limited capacity, as well as other persons authorized by law.
In such circumstances, the Supreme Court finds that legal representatives acting in the procedural status of the claimant are also subject to exemption from state duty payment based on the aforementioned grounds of Article 22 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on "State Duty".