4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Glendale, California, the United States of America. 5.  The applicant worked in the British Council’s Armenia office (hereinafter “the British Council”) as a project manager on a full-time, permanent contract starting from 25 November 2002. 6.  In the course of her employment the applicant had two children, born on 27 March 2008 and 7 May 2010. The applicant spent her maternity leave in the United States and regularly sent requests to extend that leave every six months for the duration of her absence. In particular, she sent such requests in March and September 2009 as regards her first child and then in April and September 2010 as regards her second child. It appears that the applicant’s maternity leave was extended, based on those requests. In March 2011 her leave was further extended until 1 September 2011. 7.  According to the applicant, on 19 August 2011 she requested another extension of her maternity leave. She handed an envelope with her written request to that effect to her friend H.K., who was to return to Armenia on 17 August 2011 after a visit to the United States. Upon arrival, H.K. gave the envelope to R.O., a driver, who then handed it to A.K., a security guard at the British Council. 8.  On 30 September 2011 the applicant received notice of termination of her employment contract prior to its term. The notice referred to the change in volume and conditions of work at the British Council, as well as the need to reduce the number of staff. In addition, the notice stated the following:
“... [your] employment contract shall be terminated based on [the relevant provisions] of the Labour Code of the Republic of Armenia.
We also inform you that your employment contract shall be terminated ... considering the fact that you did not return to work after the completion of your unpaid maternity leave, which was to end on 1 September 2011, as indicated in your letter sent to us by fax on 17 March 2011.
The employment contract shall be considered terminated as of 1 December 2011.” 9.  It appears that the applicant sent emails to the management of the British Council in relation to the early termination of her employment. 10.  On 30 November 2011 Ar.M., a lawyer and a representative of Prudence, a law firm which provided legal services to the British Council, replied to the applicant on behalf of that body. In particular, the email stated that the termination of the applicant’s employment had been in full compliance with domestic law and the terms and conditions of the British Council. 11.  By an order of 1 December 2011, issued by the director of the British Council, the applicant’s employment contract was terminated. 12.  On 30 December 2011 the applicant brought a claim against the British Council before the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, contesting the order of 1 December 2011 and seeking reinstatement. 13.  By a decision of 11 January 2012, Judge A.M. of the District Court took over the examination of the applicant’s case and scheduled the preparatory hearing. 14.  According to a power of attorney executed by a notary public in London on 12 January 2012, the British Council authorised, inter alia, Ar.M. and K.B., another lawyer with Prudence, to represent jointly or separately its interests before courts of all instances in Armenia. 15.  On 16 January 2012 the British Council was notified by the District Court of its taking over of the examination of the case and the judge appointed. 16.  On 31 January 2012 K.B. applied to the District Court to represent the British Council before the said court, also asking the court to postpone the hearings. On 1 February 2012 Ar.M. informed the District Court that he would not be representing the interests of the British Council in the instant case. It appears that during the whole trial before the District Court, K.B. alone represented the British Council. 17.  On 14 February 2012, in its reply to the applicant’s claim signed by K.B., the British Council denied that the applicant had submitted a request to extend her maternity leave for another six months as of 1 September 2011. 18.  On 9 July 2012 Judge A.M. rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that her dismissal had been lawful. 19.  After the proceedings before the District Court, it was discovered that Judge A.M. and the lawyer Ar.M. were twin brothers. Furthermore, the law firm Prudence, of which Ar.M. and K.P. were senior associates, had been founded by D.M., A.M.’s and Ar.M.’s elder sister, and was managed by her husband, E.M. 20.  On 6 August 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing, inter alia, that Judge A.M. had lacked impartiality when deciding her case owing to his close family ties to the legal representatives of her opponent in the proceedings. The Government claimed that no such issue had been raised, nor had any evidence to support such a claim been provided. 21.  On 28 September 2012 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment. In doing so, the Court of Appeal did not address the applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged lack of impartiality of Judge A.M. in the proceedings before the District Court. 22.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, raising similar arguments to those submitted in her previous appeal. 23.  On 28 November 2012 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.