The Human Rights Defender considers problematic increasing the state fee rates by 2 to 10 times for court applications. It can adversely affect the limited rights to the judiciary and lead to unreasonable restrictions on access to justice. This, in turn, can prevent from going to court for the protection of violated human rights.

This refers to the draft law of the Republic of Armenia “On Making Amendments to the Law of the Republic of Armenia “On State Duty”, which proposes to raise the state fee rates for lawsuits, applications, court appeals against court acts, as well as copies of documents issued by the court (duplicates) and for duplicating a computer recording of a court hearing.

In particular, the minimum state fee will increase from AMD 1,500 to AMD 6,000, the state fee for non-monetary claims from AMD 4,000 to AMD 20,000, the state fee for non-monetary claims will increase from AMD 10,000 to AMD 30,000, and in case of cassation appeals from AMD 20,000 to AMD 40,000, the state fee of 500,000 AMD for applications for bankruptcy of legal entities will increase to 1,000,000 AMD, the current 2,000 AMD for applications for confirmation of legal facts will become 20,000 AMD, etc. Some exemptions from the state duty are abolished.

In addition, the justifications for raising the current state duty rates several times are at least puzzling in the sense that it gives the impression that the costs necessary for the normal functioning of the courts can be covered only at the expense of the means received from the state duties. Meanwhile, every year, based on the Law on the State Budget of the Republic of Armenia, funds are allocated to the Judicial Department of the Republic of Armenia to ensure the normal functioning of the courts of the Republic of Armenia. In other words, the whole society is the beneficiary of this process of administration of justice, so at least it is not justified to place the entire burden of paying the expenses necessary for the normal functioning of the courts only on the participants of the trial, especially considering that this will limit the right of access to court.

As a justification for raising the state duty rates, the draft mentions, among other things, the minimum wage index, which as of 2003 amounted to 13,000 AMD, and in 2020 to 68,000 AMD, increasing 5.2 times. The analysis of the Human Rights Defender’s staff shows that in the period from 2003 to 2020, along with the increase in the minimum wage, the prices of consumer goods, services, etc. also increased, which means that only the minimum or average monthly wage indicators, the value of the minimum consumer basket are not sufficient to justify the increase in state duty rates.

The justification for the draft states that over the past two years, the costs of administering justice have exceeded the amount of state fees collected by the courts by up to 4 times. Meanwhile, the RA Civil Procedure Code, which entered into force in 2018, has introduced structures that significantly reduce the costs of administering justice. For example, court notices, parties are notified about the time and place of regular court hearings not by paper, but by e-mail, etc. Therefore, it is obvious that the current legal regulations have significantly simplified the procedure for judicial notification, which at the same time implies a reduction in the costs of court notices.

Another amendment also removes some of the existing state fee privileges, resulting in individuals and non-commercial organizations not being exempted from paying the state fee by appealing against the decision of the relevant authorized bodies on administrative offenses, dismissing the case or leaving the lawsuit without examination, lawsuits to overturn a court decision, to secure one type of claim or to replace one type of securing the claim with another, etc.

It is problematic that there is no justification for the need to abolish these privileges (except in cases of appeals against the decision of the relevant authorized bodies on administrative offenses) in the Justifications of the Draft. In connection with this practice, the Human Rights Defender noted that any additions or changes to the draft should have a proper justification, when it comes to regulations that interfere with the rights of the individual and otherwise worsen the situation. Therefore, situations when any norm in the current legislative regulations is changed, supplemented or even eliminated without any justification or necessity should be excluded.

According to the Defender, there are no justifications for the solutions of the Draft, by virtue of which the non-commercial organizations and individuals will be deprived of the privileges on the state duty.

The Defender proposed to review the rates of the state fee envisaged by the Draft, to reduce, as well as to maintain the existing privileges for the payment of the fee.