Published on 18 September 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 26670/18 Karo GHUKASYAN against Armenia lodged on 26 May 2018 communicated on 1 September 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On 24 February 2016 the applicant participated in a sit-in protest in support of V.G., a well-known civic activist, in front of the presidential residence. As it appears from the case materials, the protesters refused to comply with the demand of police officers to move to the opposite sidewalk and to continue their protest on the other side of the street. Instead, the protesters lay down on the ground in front of the gates of the presidential residence. As a result, the applicant together with other protesters was subjected to a short-term administrative arrest by the police. Following an application filed by the police, the Administrative Court imposed a fine in the amount of 50,000 Armenian drams on the applicant for non-compliance with a lawful order of the police. At the same time the court dismissed the counter-claim lodged by the applicant on 25 May 2016 against the police whereby he contested the actions of the police interfering with his right to liberty and right to freedom of assembly. This judgment was upheld by the higher courts, with a copy of the final decision being served on the applicant on 27 November 2017. The applicant alleges that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and that there was an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of assembly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the proceedings instituted by the applicant on 25 May 2016 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 whether the courts had jurisdiction to examine those complaints and what kind of redress the applicant might obtain as a result of those proceedings in respect of his complaints under that Article (see Gavril Yosifov v. Bulgaria , no. 74012/01, § 41, 6 November 2008), as well as to submit examples of the 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 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)?

3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention (see Navalnyy , §§ 103, 128 and 145, and Berkman , §§ 48 and 59-62, both cited above, and Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia , no. 10877/04, §§ 35-49, 23 October 2008)?