LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF LORETSYAN v. ARMENIA
Doc ref: 21702/22 • ECHR ID: 001-230307
Document date: January 18, 2024
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
CASE OF LORETSYAN v. ARMENIA
Doc ref: 21702/22 • ECHR ID: 001-230307
Document date: January 18, 2024
Cited paragraphs only
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF LORETSYAN v. ARMENIA
(Application no. 21702/22)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 January 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Loretsyan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović , President , Anja Seibert-Fohr, Anne Louise Bormann , judges ,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Conventionâ€) on 20 April 2022.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr L. Sahakyan, a lawyer practising in Arinj village.
3. The Armenian Government (“the Governmentâ€) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
THE LAW
5. The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. His complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
6. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006 ‑ X, with further references).
7. In the leading cases of Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, §§ 48 et seq., 20 October 2016, and Muradkhanyan v. Armenia, no. 12895/06, 5 June 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive and unreasonable.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, § 66), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Court which issued detention order/ examined appeal
Specific defects
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)
[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros) [2]
21702/22
20/04/2022
Gevorg LORETSYAN
1994
Sahakyan Levon
Arinj village
04/12/2019 - 19/10/2022
Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan
Criminal Court of Appeal
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to the excessive length of detention on remand
2,000
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
