FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MINASYAN v. ARMENIA
(Application no. 54620/16)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
6 November 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Minasyan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Andreas Zünd, President,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy,
 Vahe Grigoryan, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 54620/16) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 September 2016 by an Iranian national, Mr Zhorzh Minasyan (“the applicant”), who was born in 1941, lives in Yerevan and was represented by Ms L. Manaseryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the right of access to a court to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 9 October 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the applicant’s allegation that he was denied access to the Court of Cassation in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 2. In 2014 the applicant lodged civil claims with the Armavir Regional Court against a private company, seeking some payment and annulment of a contract. 3. On 29 April 2015 the Armavir Regional Court dismissed the claims. 4. The applicant appealed against the judgment. 5. On 25 December 2015 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court’s judgment. The applicant received the decision on 8 January 2016. 6. On 28 January 2016 the applicant appealed on points of law. In his appeal, he mentioned the date of service of the Civil Court of Appeal’s decision and provided evidence of it. 7. On 9 March 2016 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible, finding that it had been lodged outside the one-month time-limit for appeal, counted from the date of the Civil Court of Appeal’s decision, and that no request to restore the time-limit had been submitted. It relied on Article 233.1 § 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure under which an out‑of‑time appeal lodged without a request to restore the time-limit was to be declared inadmissible.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation