(Application no. 31553/03)
13 January 2009
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Amiryan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
“On 21 February 2003 [the applicant] participated together with a group of people in an unauthorised demonstration in Yerevan.”
“[The applicant, according to the decision of the District Court, was subjected to administrative detention] ... for the violation of the prescribed rules for organising and holding assemblies, demonstrations, street marches and rallies, namely on 21 February 2003 he participated in an unauthorised demonstration and street march, during which he violated public order.
Having familiarised myself with [the applicant's] appeal and the materials concerning the administrative offence, I find that the penalty imposed on [the applicant] must be changed.”
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
I. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH RULE AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF 22 FEBRUARY 2003
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF 1 MARCH 2003
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly...
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others...”
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF 1 MARCH 2003
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF 1 MARCH 2003
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
B. Costs and expenses
(a) USD 6,750 for the fees of his two domestic representatives (totals of 28 and 25 hours at USD 150 and 100 per hour respectively);
(b) GBP 6,112.50 for the fees of his three United Kingdom-based lawyers, including two KHRP lawyers and one barrister (totals of about 14 and 40 hours at GBP 150 and 100 per hour respectively); and
(c) GBP 115 for administrative costs incurred by the KHRP.
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable at the date of settlement and to be paid into his representatives' bank account in the United Kingdom;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 13 January 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Josep Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President