Background
New Generation Humanitarian NGO, an Armenian organisation working to protect LGBT rights, sued a local newspaper and journalist over an article calling it a “grant-sucking defender of homosexuals,” a “defender of immoral human waste,” and an organisation that had “disgraced” Independence Day. It sought a public apology, compensation, and publication of findings in its favour. The domestic courts dismissed the claim; the first-instance court considered the impugned language to target sexual minorities rather than the NGO itself and treated the descriptions of the NGO as protected value judgments.
The NGO appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation. After being told to rectify procedural defects, it paid fees for one pecuniary and one non-pecuniary claim. The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal because it considered that the NGO had made two separate non-pecuniary claims and had therefore underpaid fees. It gave no further opportunity to pay the additional amount.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Armenia violated Article 6 § 1 by disproportionately restricting the NGO’s access to the Court of Cassation. The applicable State Fees Act did not clearly require fees for non-pecuniary claims to be multiplied by the number of such claims. The NGO could reasonably rely on the Court of Appeal’s treatment of its multiple non-pecuniary requests as a single claim.
The Court of Cassation had not specified the fee due when it first returned the appeal, nor identified case-law that could clarify the calculation. When it later held that an additional fee was required, it refused to set a new deadline for compliance. That combination deprived the NGO of an effective opportunity to meet an unforeseeable requirement and impaired the essence of its right of access to a court.
Key Takeaways
- Procedural fee requirements for access to a highest court must have a clear legal basis and be reasonably foreseeable.
- A litigant may reasonably rely on a lower court’s consistent treatment of multiple claims where the governing law is unclear.
- Rejecting an appeal without allowing compliance with a newly specified fee requirement can be disproportionate under Article 6 § 1.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that formal rules governing appeals cannot be applied unpredictably to bar review by a superior court. Courts must give litigants a practical and effective opportunity to correct fee deficiencies, particularly where the alleged shortfall follows from an unclear statutory scheme.
The Court declared the NGO’s complaints concerning the allegedly homophobic media article inadmissible. As a legal entity, it could not itself claim harm to dignity or psychological well-being from hate speech, and it did not show that the article caused reputational harm sufficiently serious to engage Article 8. The Court awarded EUR 3,600 in non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 in costs.