CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 January 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 5567/16 Gevorg SAFARYAN against Armenia lodged on 16 January 2016 communicated on 9 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s arrest several hours after the end of a protest rally, held on 6 March 2014, for his failure to comply with a police order not to block a public road at that rally, and the refusal of the domestic courts to examine his application contesting the actions of the police. It appears that the police justified the applicant’s deprivation of liberty by reference to Articles 258 and 259 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“CAO”), which allowed one and three-hour-long police custody respectively, for the purpose of, inter alia , drawing up an administrative offence record. According to the applicant, his police custody lasted for more than three hours. Thereafter the police applied to the Administrative Court to impose an administrative penalty on the applicant under Article 182 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the CAO. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown. The applicant learnt about the institution of administrative proceedings against him only after the case was set down for trial since, as it appears, the Administrative Court sent the relevant notices to a wrong address. On 13   January 2015, relying on Article 69 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (“CAP”), the applicant lodged a counter-claim, asking the court that the actions of the police be declared unlawful. In particular, the applicant contested both the lawfulness of the police order not to block a public road and the lawfulness of his arrest for failing to comply with that order. The Administrative Court refused to admit it on the basis of Article 87 § 1 of the CAP since it was lodged after the case had been set down for trial. The applicant’s appeals were rejected by higher judicial instances and the final court decision was served on him on 16 July 2015.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the proceedings instituted by the applicant on 13 January 2015 an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Articles 5 § 1 and 11 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 those Articles, as well as to submit examples of 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 in conformity with domestic law, namely Articles 258 and 259 of the CAO and was it 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)? The Government are requested to indicate the time of the applicant’s release.   3.     Was the refusal of the domestic courts to examine the applicant’s counter-claim of 13 January 2015 in breach of his right of access to court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v.   Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §§ 84-89, 29 November 2016; Nunes Dias v.   Portugal   (dec.), nos.   2672/03   and   69829/01, ECHR 2003-IV; and Kamenova v. Bulgaria , no. 62784/09, §§ 47-48, 12 July 2018)?   4.     Did the applicant’s arrest violate his right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention (see Navalnyy , cited above, § 128, and Hakim Aydın v. Turkey , no. 4048/09, §§ 50-51, 26 May 2020)?