Published on 19 February 2024

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 15847/17 Yeghia NERSESYAN against Armenia lodged on 2 February 2017 communicated on 30 January 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On 6 March 2014 the applicant participated in a protest rally against construction of a hydroelectric power plant by blocking an inter-regional thoroughfare. After returning to Yerevan, he was arrested by police officers for not complying with the police orders to abstain from blocking a public road earlier that day and was escorted to a police station in Ashtarak, a town near Yerevan, for drawing up an administrative offence record. Later the police instituted administrative proceedings against the applicant seeking to have him fined. On 18 September 2014 the applicant filed a counter-claim whereby he contested the actions of the police interfering, inter alia , with his rights to liberty and to freedom of assembly. The Administrative Court examined both claims jointly, deciding to impose a fine on the applicant in the amount of 50,000 Armenian drams for failure to comply with a lawful order of the police and partially granting the applicant’s counter-claim. In particular, the Administrative Court acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty, finding that the impossibility of drawing up the administrative offence record on the spot had not been proven and that the aim of preventing the commission of another administrative offence was absent in the given circumstances, but rejected the claim as far as the interference with his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly was concerned. These findings were upheld by the Court of Appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, accompanied with a request to be exempted from the payment of court fees or, if such request were to be dismissed, deferral of payment of court fees. On 13 July 2016 the Court of Cassation left the applicant’s appeal on points of law without examination for failure to substantiate his entitlement to the deferral of payment of court fees and without addressing his request to be exempted from the payment of the court fees.

The applicant alleges that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and that there was an unjustified interference with his right of access to court and to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the proceedings instituted by the applicant on 18 September 2014 an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaint under Articles 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 the above 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 lawful and 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. Was the refusal of the Court of Cassation to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law in breach of his right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-99, 5 April 2018)?

4. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful 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)?