CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2025

.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 } Published on 3 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 57475/18 Eduard MKHITARYAN against Armenia lodged on 7 November 2018 communicated on 13 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 11 September 2015 a demonstration was held on one of the central streets of Yerevan. Notably, the demonstrators, including the applicant, marched towards the President’s office, situated on Baghramyan Avenue. Being stopped halfway by a police cordon, they decided to hold a sit-in on the road and refused to comply with the orders of the police to clear the road in 6 hours. In the early morning of 12 September 2015, at around 5.30 a.m., after the expiry of the said deadline, the police disbanded the sit-in and subjected the applicant to a short-term administrative arrest. Then, upon an application by the police, the Administrative Court imposed a fine on the applicant in the amount of 50,000 Armenian drams for his failure to comply with the lawful orders of the police to clear the road (an administrative offence under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences). The applicant’s appeals were unsuccessful, and the final decision was served on him on 7 June 2018. The applicant, relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, complains that his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly were violated. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention, taken alone and read in the light of Article 10 of the Convention?