LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF AGHANYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
Doc ref: 58070/12, 58073/12, 58077/12, 58078/12, 58085/12, 58089/12, 58091/12, 58095/12, 58098/12, 58111/12, ... • ECHR ID: 001-198793
Document date: December 5, 2019
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
CASE OF AGHANYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
Doc ref: 58070/12, 58073/12, 58077/12, 58078/12, 58085/12, 58089/12, 58091/12, 58095/12, 58098/12, 58111/12, ... • ECHR ID: 001-198793
Document date: December 5, 2019
Cited paragraphs only
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF AGHANYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
( Applications nos. 58070/12 and 21 others )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 December 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Aghanyan and Others v. Armenia ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President, Armen Harutyunyan, Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges, and Renata Degener , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 12 November 2019 ,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1 . The case originated in 22 applications (Mr Sergey Aghanyan and 21 others (“the applicants”) – see the appended table ) 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”) by 22 Armenian nationals on the dates indicated in the appended table.
2 . The applicants were represented by Mr P. Muzny , Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr A. Martirosyan, lawyers practising in Strasbourg, Paris and Yerevan respectively. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan , Representative of the Republic of Armenia before the European Court of Human Rights.
3 . On 13 December 2018 the Government were given notice of the complaints concerning the alleged breach of the applicants ’ right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
THE FACTS
4 . The applicants ’ details are set out in the appended table.
5 . The applicants are all Jehovah ’ s Witnesses who were convicted on various dates in 2012 after refusing to perform both military and alternative civilian service, alleging that the latter was not of genuinely civilian nature and that it contradicted their conscience. The applicants complained that the criminal proceedings against them and their convictions violated their rights guaranteed under Article 9 of the Convention.
6 . The relevant domestic law and international documents are summarised in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Adyan and Others v. Armenia (no. 75604/11, §§ 27-48, 12 October 2017).
THE LAW
7 . Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
8 . In their letter of 18 April 2019 the Government rejected the Court ’ s friendly-settlement proposals and requested that the Court strike the cases out of its list on the basis of enclosed unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicants.
9 . Having considered the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declarations, the Court concludes that they did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
10 . The Court, therefore, rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI).
11 . The applicants complained that the criminal proceedings against them and their convictions for evasion of military and alternative civilian service had violated their rights as provided in Article 9 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one ’ s religion or belief shall be subject only to such limitations as are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
12 . The Government did not contest that argument.
13 . The Court already found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in respect of issues similar to those in the present case in the leading judgment of Adyan and Others (cited above, §§ 67-74).
14 . Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants ’ convictions for evasion of military and alternative service violated their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
15 . These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 9 of the Convention.
16 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
17 . The applicants claimed each 10,00 0 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and before the Court.
18 . The Government contested the claims, arguing that the amounts claimed were exorbitant.
19 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law, the Court considers it reasonabl e to award each applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 covering costs for the domestic proceedings and those before the Court.
20 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 December 2019 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Renata Degener Krzysztof Wojtyczek Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
List of cases
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
1
58070/12
Aghanyan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Sergey AGHANYAN
02/06/1993
Yerevan
Armenian
2
58073/12
Arakelyan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Aramayis ARAKELYAN
19/06/1993
Metsamor
Armenian
3
58077/12
Aslanyan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Artur ASLANYAN
14/10/1993
Gyumri
Armenian
4
58078/12
Grigoryan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Anania GRIGORYAN
12/12/1993
Nor -Armavir village
Armenian
5
58085/12
Harutyunyan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Arsen HARUTYUNYAN
20/02/1993
Yerevan
Armenian
6
58089/12
Hovhannisyan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Andranik HOVHANNISYAN
31/03/1993
Yerevan
Armenian
7
58091/12
Khachatryan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Artsrun KHACHATRYAN
20/09/1993
Meghradzor village
Armenian
8
58095/12
Khodoyan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Maksim KHODOYAN
03/04/1988
Nor Geghi village
Armenian
9
58098/12
Sahakyan v. Armenia
03/09/2011
Gevorg SAHAKYAN
20/01/1993
Yerevan
Armenian
10
58111/12
Stepanyan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Seryozha STEPANYAN
22/03/1993
Armavir
Armenian
11
58120/12
Vardanyan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Varazdat VARDANYAN
26/10/1993
Nor Kharberd
Armenian
12
58127/12
Zakaryan v. Armenia
03/09/2012
Nver ZAKARYAN
30/10/1993
Lusakunk
Armenian
13
752/13
Arakelyan v. Armenia
21/12/2012
Davit ARAKELYAN
19/03/1994
Yerevan
Armenian
14
757/13
Arakelyan v. Armenia
21/12/2012
Gevorg ARAKELYAN
03/01/1990
Yerevan
Armenian
15
758/13
Boyajyan v. Armenia
21/12/2012
Tigran BOYAJYAN
13/07/1993
Yerevan
Armenian
16
760/13
Davtyan v. Armenia
21/12/2012
Hakob DAVTYAN
22/05/1994
Vardenik village
Armenian
17
761/13
Galstyan v. Armenia
21/12/2012
Mushegh GALSTYAN
03/04/1994
Zovuni village
Armenian
18
762/13
Manasyan v. Armenia
21/12/2012
Mikhail MANASYAN
03/08/1993
Avan Arzni
Armenian
19
764/13
Sargsyan v. Armenia
21/12/2012
Vahe SARGSYAN
01/01/1993
Yerevan
Armenian
20
766/13
Ter-Galstanyan v. Armenia
21/12/2012
Vahe TER-GALSTANYAN
02/07/1993
Yerevan
Armenian
21
767/13
Yeremyan v. Armenia
21/12/2012
Artyom YEREMYAN
31/10/1990
Yerevan
Armenian
22
768/13
Yesayan v. Armenia
21/12/2012
Martiros YESAYAN
28/02/1994
Yerevan
Armenian
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
