CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 2022

.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 } .s8B15FBF9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase }   Published on 24 October 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 9796/17 Hayk GRIGORYAN against Armenia lodged on 19 January 2017 communicated on 6 October 2022 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Hayk Grigoryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Ms   A.   Maralyan and Ms L. Sahakyan, lawyers practising in Strasbourg and Yerevan. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 19 July 2016 the applicant – a journalist – was filming a protest rally which escalated into a violent confrontation between demonstrators and the police. From the video footage submitted by the applicant it appears that he was surrounded by several police officers, some of whom apparently hit him. They then grabbed the applicant’s camera and allegedly ordered that he delete his recordings, which he refused to do. Soon the applicant’s colleague approached them, urging the police to let go of the applicant as he was a journalist and to return the camera. The applicant submits that he pleaded unsuccessfully with the officers to return his camera. It appears that eventually the camera was returned after the intervention of a senior police officer, but the recordings of the day had allegedly been deleted. The applicant did not pursue any remedies, claiming that there were no effective domestic remedies for the breach of his right to freedom of expression. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention of the alleged violation of his right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to carry out his journalistic activity. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, the Government are requested to explain whether there were any effective remedies in the domestic legal system in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article   10, as well as to submit examples of relevant domestic case-law and practice.   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?