Published on 3 January 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 17997/16 Argishti KIVIRYAN against Armenia lodged on 23 March 2016 communicated on 9 December 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s arrest on 4 April 2014 at the site of a protest rally for his failure to comply with the orders of a police officer not to rally near the General Prosecutor’s office, and the subsequent administrative proceedings instituted against him, allegedly aimed to punish the applicant for his participation in a peaceful demonstration. The police justified the applicant’s arrest – which apparently exceeded the statutory time-limit of three hours – by reference to Articles 258 and 259 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“CAO”) and then applied to the Administrative Court seeking to impose an administrative penalty on the applicant under Article 182 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the CAO.

On 19 February 2015 the Administrative Court allowed the application of the police, imposing a fine on the applicant. It also dismissed the applicant’s counter-claim, lodged on 11 September 2014, in which the latter, relying on Article 69 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, had asked the court that the actions of the police be declared unlawful. In particular, the applicant contested both the lawfulness of the police order not to really near the General Prosecutor’s office and the lawfulness of his arrest for failing to comply with that order. The judgment of the Administrative Court was upheld on appeal by higher judicial instances and the final court decision was served on the applicant on 23 September 2015.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the proceedings instituted by the applicant on 11 September 2014 an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Gavril Yosifov v. Bulgaria , no. 74012/01, § 41, 6 November 2008)? 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, as well as to submit examples of relevant domestic case-law and practice.

2. Assuming that the proceedings in question were an effective remedy, was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty in conformity with domestic law, namely Articles 258 and 259 of the CAO and was it necessary in the circumstances (see Navalnyy v. Russia [GC] , nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 71-72, 15 November 2018, and Berkman v. Russia , no. 46712/15, §§ 34-38, 1 December 2020)? The Government are requested to indicate the exact hours when the applicant was taken into custody in front of the General Prosecutor’s Office and when he was brought to the police station, as well as the time of his release.

3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and/or freedom of assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see Navalnyy , §§ 103, 128 and 145, and Berkman , §§ 48 and 59 ‑ 62, both cited above)?