Published on 19 February 2024

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 40610/17 Dvin ISANYANS against Armenia lodged on 20 April 2017 communicated on 30 January 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On 13 May 2014 the applicant participated in a protest rally at a park in the center of Yerevan, where on the same day the presidents of Armenia and France were supposed to meet. According to the findings of the domestic courts reached on the basis of the police reports and a video recording of the incident, the applicant tried to break through the police cordon several times in order to access the area where the presidents were supposed to meet, and refused to comply with the police orders to cease his attempts to do so. As a result, he was subjected to a short-term administrative arrest and escorted to a police station to have an administrative offence report drawn up. The applicant stayed in police custody for about three hours. Later the police instituted administrative proceedings against the applicant seeking to have him fined. On 12 March 2015 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 dismissing the applicant’s counter-claim. 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 5 October 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.

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 complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the proceedings instituted by the applicant on 12 March 2015 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? In this context, the Government are specifically requested to explain whether the courts had jurisdiction to examine this complaint and what kind of redress the applicant might obtain as a result of those proceedings in respect of his complaint 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 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)?