The applicant, Armen Mkrtchyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). At the material time he was a member of the “Republic” Party.

On 14 May 2002 he took part in a demonstration on Freedom Square organised by his party and six other political parties.

Following the demonstration the applicant called on participants to hold a procession up Baghramyan Avenue towards the Parliament building. Later on that evening he was arrested for organising an unlawful procession and having violated the prescribed rules for holding demonstrations and street processions.

On 15 May 2002 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan found that he had committed an offence under Article 180.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) and fined him the equivalent of one euro. The decision was final and not subject to appeal.

On 24 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Civil Court of Appeal. The applicant argued that he had a constitutional right to contest the decision of the District Court before a higher court. He further argued that the interference with his right to freedom of assembly was not prescribed by law as there was no law which prescribed the rules that the applicant had allegedly violated. He expressly requested the Court of Appeal to name any such law if it existed. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision and the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation informed the applicant that the domestic legislation did not provide for a right to lodge a cassation appeal against the decisions which the applicant sought to contest.

On 28 April 2004 the Armenian Parliament adopted a law regulating the procedure for holding assemblies, rallies, street processions and demonstrations.

2.  Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 November 2002 and declared partly admissible on 20 October 2005.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President,
John Hedigan (Irish),
Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian),
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian),
Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian),
David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic),
Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), judges,
and also Vincent Berger, Section Registrar.

3.  Summary of the judgment²

Complaint

He complained that the sanction imposed on him unlawfully interfered with his right to freedom of peaceful assembly since it was not prescribed by law. He relied on Article 11.

Decision of the Court

The Court noted that it was in dispute between the parties whether at the material time there was any legal act in Armenia which envisaged the “prescribed rules” referred to in Article 180.1 of the CAO. The Government alleged that the “prescribed rules” were envisaged by the Decree of the Chairmanship of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on “Rules for Organising and Holding of Assemblies, Rallies, Street Processions and Demonstrations in the USSR” of 28 July 1988 and the USSR Law on “Approving Decrees of the Chairmanship of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on Making Amendments and Supplements to Certain USSR Legal Acts” of 28 October 1988, while the applicant contended that these were legal acts of the former USSR and were no longer valid and applicable in Armenia following its independence. Thus, according to him, no “prescribed rules” existed in Armenia which he was found to have violated.

In that respect, the Court noted that there was no domestic provision which clearly stated whether the former USSR laws remained or did not remain in force on the territory of Armenia. The Court also drew attention to the absence of any domestic case-law concerning the disputed matter. Notwithstanding the Court’s request, the Government failed to submit any examples of domestic practice, such as copies of any court decisions or judgments which would clarify that issue or at least make references to any former USSR laws, in general, or the Law and the Decree, in particular. Furthermore, the domestic courts also failed to refer to any legal act which prescribed the rules for holding rallies and street processions which the applicant was found to have violated. Thus, having regard to the domestic courts’ lack of reference to any legal provision prescribing the rules in question and to the absence of any case-law concerning the applicability of the former USSR laws in Armenia following its independence, the Court considered that the law in question, namely the “prescribed rules” referred to in Article 180.1 of the CAO, was not formulated with such precision as to enable the applicant to foresee, to a degree that was reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences of his actions.

The Court noted that following the dissolution of the USSR there was no legal act applicable in Armenia which contained those rules and the relevant law was adopted only on 28 April 2004. The Court accepted that it may take some time for a country to establish its legislative framework in a transition period, but it could not accept the delay of almost thirteen years to be justifiable, especially when such a fundamental right as freedom of peaceful assembly is at stake. The Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly was not prescribed by law.

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Press contacts
Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.