Communicated on 20 January 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 46049/14 Maksim POPOV against Armenia lodged on 13 June 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Maksim Popov, is a Russian national who was born in 1992 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Ms G. Khachatryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 21 July 2012 the applicant was supposed to travel from Yerevan to Mineralnye Vody , Russia, for a summer holiday with his family; his flight was scheduled for 9.40 a.m.

At 8.15 a.m., prior to boarding his flight, the applicant was stopped at the border by border guards of the National Security Service on the grounds that his personal details, namely his first and last names, were the same as those of a person wanted by the Moldovan authorities on suspicion of having committed an offence. It appears that he was held at Zvartnots Airport until around 11.40 a.m., whereupon he was handed over by the border guards to the police and taken to the Principal Department for Criminal Investigations of the Armenian police (“the PDCI”) for a further check. According to the “record of bringing the applicant to police” ( անձին բերման ենթարկելու մասին արձանագրություն ), the applicant was admitted to the PDCI at 12.30 p.m. on suspicion of being wanted by the Moldovan authorities. The applicant was informed of his rights as a person deprived of liberty and the relevant record was drawn up. It appears that, following a check, it was established that the wanted person ’ s patronymic name was Anatolyevich , that he had been born in Moldova and was a Moldovan national. It further appears that a photo was obtained of the wanted person from the National Central Bureau of Interpol in Armenia which did not match the applicant ’ s appearance. A statement was taken from the applicant who submitted that he had never been to Moldova, he had never changed his patronymic name ( Genadyevich ) and he had indeed been born in Tbilisi. At 1.15 p.m. the applicant was set free.

The applicant alleges that the differences between his personal details and those of the wanted person, specifically their patronymic names, places of birth and nationalities, were evident to the border guards from the very beginning but he was nevertheless not allowed to board the flight.

On 12 October 2012 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the National Security Service and the Armenian police, arguing that their actions had been unlawful and seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

On 5 June 2013 the Kentron and Nork- Marash District Court of Yerevan partially allowed the applicant ’ s claim, finding that the respondents ’ actions had been unlawful. In particular, the applicant ’ s personal details and those of the wanted person were essentially different. It had been possible to establish this through a simple passport check and there had been no need to arrest the applicant ( բերման ենթարկել ) and take him to the PDCI. The District Court awarded the applicant 25,292 Armenians drams (AMD) in respect of pecuniary damage for the part of the price of the unused airplane ticket which had not been reimbursed by the travel company, but terminated the proceedings in their part concerning his claim for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of AMD 2,000,000 since the Armenian law did not envisage this type of compensation and therefore this issue was not subject to court examination.

On 4 July 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal, contesting the District Court ’ s refusal to examine his claim for non-pecuniary damages.

On 23 October 2013 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the District Court.

On 25 November 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.

On 18 December 2013 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.

The applicant alleges that a similar incident took place in July 2013. In particular, he was once again stopped at the border for an identity check on the same grounds, which lasted about one and a half hours, and was able to board the flight only after producing a copy of the judgment of 5 June 2013. On 30 July 2013 he addressed a complaint to the National Security Service and the Armenian police, requesting that corrections be made in the database of wanted persons. By a letter of 7 August 2013 the chief of the PDCI replied that a letter had been forwarded to the National Central Bureau of Interpol in Armenia with a request to make the appropriate corrections in the database of wanted persons at the information centre of the Armenian police in order to distinguish the applicant from the Maksim Popov wanted by the Moldovan authorities.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his deprivation of liberty was unlawful and unjustified.

The applicant complains, under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, that he was not awarded any non-pecuniary damage as this type of compensation was not envisaged by domestic law.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? The Government are requested to specify where and under whose authority the applicant was being held at Yerevan ’ s Zvartnots Airport between 8.15 a.m. and 11.40 a.m. on 21 July 2012 before his transfer to the police and whether this amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

2. Was the fact that no compensation for damage of a non-pecuniary nature was available to the applicant under Armenian law compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Khachatryan and Others v. Armenia , no. 23978/06, §§ 158-159, 27 November 2012)?