The decisions to reject the motion to replace or modify the security measure of the claim are now subject to appeal

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia has expressed an important position regarding both the institution of securing claims and the content of the right to appeal judicial acts in its decision SDO-1802 dated November 11, 2025, putting an end to the legal practice whereby the rejection of a motion to replace the security measure of the claim by another means or to modify an already applied measure was considered unappealable in the review process.
The assessment of the constitutionality of the issue was based on the formulation of point 3 of part 1 of Article 361 of the Civil Procedure Code, according to which the decisions on the rejection of the motion to apply a security measure and the decisions to lift the security of the claim are subject to appeal in the review process, while the decisions on the rejection of the motion to replace the already applied security measure of the claim by another means or to modify it are not explicitly mentioned therein.
As a result, due to the literal interpretation given to Article 361, the acceptance of appeals against such decisions was excluded in legal practice.

Addressing the constitutionality of the norm, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia has considered the issue not solely from the perspective of its literal formulation but from the standpoint of the constitutional content of the right to effective judicial protection.
The Court emphasized the fundamental importance of the right to appeal judicial acts, noting.
“The constitutional and legal quality that guarantees the effectiveness of the right to judicial protection includes, among other things, the right to appeal judicial acts, which on the one hand ensures the full judicial protection of a person's rights through the application of tools for revealing and correcting judicial errors, and on the other hand guarantees the functionality of the self-monitoring mechanism within the judicial authority.”
The Constitutional Court also noted that the right to appeal has a broader systemic significance: it contributes to the correction of judicial errors, the unity of judicial practice, and ultimately, the increase of public confidence in the justice system.
Based on this logic, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the decision on the scope of appealable judicial acts and the legal practice regarding them cannot be formed detached from fundamental rights. According to the Court, the legislative clarification of the scope of appealable acts, as well as their interpretation and application “must always be anchored in the protection of human rights, ensuring the effectiveness of judicial protection, and the realization of the right to a fair trial,” and the limitations on the right to appeal must be constitutional. As a result, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia concluded that point 3 of part 1 of Article 361 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia is in accordance with the Constitution, interpreting that the decision to reject the motion to replace the security measure of the claim by another means or to modify it is subject to appeal in the review process.
The SDO-1802 decision is of key importance, formulating an important message regarding the application and interpretation of legal norms. It emphasizes that the application of the law cannot rely solely on its literal interpretation but must also be carried out considering the significance of the norm and constitutional values, so that the right does not remain a formally enshrined possibility but is actually exercised and effectively protected.