Published on 29 August 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 74589/17 Tigran MAZMANYAN against Armenia lodged on 18 October 2017 communicated on 18 July 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On 11 September 2015 the applicant participated in a demonstration, which transformed into a sit-in protest on one of the main thoroughfares of Yerevan. Notably, the protesters, including the applicant, marched towards the President’s office but were stopped halfway by a police cordon. They decided to hold a sit-in on the road and refused to comply with the orders of the police to clear it in six and a half hours. In the early morning of 12 September 2015, after the expiry of the said deadline, the police disbanded the sit-in and subjected the applicant to a short-term administrative arrest. Then, upon an application by the police, the Administrative Court imposed a fine in the amount of 50,000 Armenian drams on him for failure to comply with a lawful order of the police. The court also rejected the applicant’s counter ‑ claim against the police, lodged on 4 December 2015, in which he contested the actions of the police interfering with his right to liberty and right to freedom of assembly. The applicant’s appeals were unsuccessful and the final decision was served on him on 25 May 2017.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for his complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the proceedings instituted by the applicant on 4 December 2015 an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In this context, the Government are specifically requested to explain what kind of redress the applicant might obtain as a result of those proceedings in respect of his complaints under that Article (see, among other authorities, Gavril Yosifov v. Bulgaria , no. 74012/01, § 41, 6 November 2008), and to submit examples of the relevant domestic case-law and practice.

2. Assuming that the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit, was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty on 12 September 2015 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was it in conformity with the Constitution and was it necessary in the circumstances?

3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, taken alone and read in the light of Article 10 of the Convention?