FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF LMNTSYAN AND SLOYAN v. ARMENIA
(Applications nos. 41973/19 and 51266/19)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
9 February 2023
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lmntsyan and Sloyan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anja Seibert-Fohr, President,
 Armen Harutyunyan,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The first applicant was represented by Ms N. Rshtuni, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. The second applicant was self-represented. 3. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 8. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 9. In the leading case of Fil LLC v. Armenia, no. 18526/13, 31 January 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having decided to reject the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion (see Fil LLC, cited above, §§ 49-50, and Vassilyan and Others v. Armenia [Committee], nos. 20193/15 and 2 others, § 9, 23 June 2022), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 11. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case‑law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Fill LLC, cited above, §§ 49-50. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13.

Outcome for Article 13: violation