CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 janvier 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 29 January 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 5778/17 Hrayr MANUKYAN against Armenia lodged on 28 December 2016 communicated on 8 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns allegations of unlawful and unnecessary collection of the applicant’s personal information by security services, coercion to cooperate with them using threats, lack of an effective investigation into these allegations, and lack of an effective remedy. It appears from the materials of the case that in 2014 the applicant, who held a high-ranking position in an opposition political party in Armenia, was contacted by V.H., a person who introduced himself as an agent of the National Security Service, and was asked to cooperate with that service. It also appears that after the applicant refused, V.H. made, among others, the following threats: that there could be very bad consequences for the applicant and the people close to him; that V.H. knew almost everything about the applicant and he could not rule out a bombshell in the media about the applicant or his political party; that a person refusing the State could not have a future in that State; that it was up to V.H. to decide whether the applicant would be allowed to travel outside Armenia; and that the applicant was going to be blacklisted. On 8 July 2014 the applicant reported the incident to the Prosecutor General and submitted an audio recording that he had made during one of his meetings with V.H. In reply, the applicant received a letter from the Prosecutor General’s office stating that the actions attributed to the agent of the National Security Service did not contain prima facie elements of a crime. Hence, the applicant’s complaint did not constitute a crime report and was not subject to examination under the relevant articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The letter further stated that these circumstances had also been confirmed by the information received from the National Security Service. Following unsuccessful appeals to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (the District Court) and the Criminal Court of Appeal against the inaction of the Prosecutor General’s office, the applicant appealed further to the Court of Cassation. He argued, inter alia , that V.H.’s actions contained elements of crimes proscribed by Articles 144, 161 and 309 of the Criminal Code (unlawful collection, storage, use or distribution of information concerning personal or family life; interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of association; overstepping official powers). Upon appeal, the Court of Cassation found, inter alia , that the applicant’s report did prima facie contain information about elements of specific criminal acts and it could be reasonably assumed that verification of that information could reveal sufficient grounds to institute criminal proceedings. Consequently, it quashed the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination. Subsequently, the applicant’s report was re-examined by a prosecutor who decided to refuse to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds that the actions attributed to the agent of the National Security Service did not contain prima facie elements of a crime. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against that decision to the Prosecutor General and before the courts. On 28 July 2017 the applicant’s final appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation for lack of merit. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of unlawful and unnecessary interference with his private and family life and about the lack of an effective investigation into it. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that his right to an effective remedy has been breached.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society as required by Article   8 §   2 of the Convention?   2.     Did the State have a positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations (see, for example, M.D. and Others v. Spain , no. 36584/17, § 58, 28 June 2022, and Y.G. v. Russia , no. 8647/12, § 43, 30 August 2022)?   If so, has there been an effective investigation? 3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? The parties are requested to submit a copy of the audio recording of the applicant’s conversation with V.H. which was submitted by the applicant to the authorities with his complaint of 8 July 2014.