CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } Published on 17 November 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33289/19 Hovik ABRAHAMYAN against Armenia lodged on 13 June 2019 communicated on 27 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the complaints raised by the applicant, who is a former high-ranking official, in relation to the alleged arbitrary and unlawful search of his residential premises. On 3 August 2018, upon the investigator’s application, the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction issued a search warrant in the scope of the criminal case concerning the deaths of demonstrators during the post-election protest rally of 1 March 2008 when the applicant was the Deputy Prime Minister. Later a case against several former high-ranking officials on account of alleged overthrowing of the constitutional order in the context of the same events was initiated and joined to the first case (for details see Kocharyan v.   Armenia , no. 52996/18 and 6 others, communicated on 12   September 2024). The investigator’s application was based on a letter from the National Security Service (“the NSS”) informing the investigative body about the results of operative and intelligence measures which had shown that the applicant illegally possessed weapons and ammunition. The letter further alleged that during the events of 1 March 2008 the applicant had ordered the recruitment and arming of several dozen individuals. The court authorised a search in the applicant’s two properties in Yerevan and in a house in his hometown. The search warrant referred to the operative information from the NSS, as cited in the investigator’s application, and stated as follows: “(...) the investigator’s application to restrict [the applicant’s] right to private life is legitimate; it is necessary for fulfilling the investigative body’s obligation to detect the alleged crime, is provided for by law and should be granted”. As far as the scope of the warrant is concerned, the court authorised the search “in order to find and seize items and objects of evidentiary value for the criminal case”. It appears that the searches were carried out on 7 and 8 August 2018. The applicant appealed against the search warrant complaining of lack of sufficient reasons for authorising the searches as well as of the broad scope of the warrant. By a decision of 4 October 2018 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal finding that the authorisation of the search had been based not only on the “operative information” from the NSS but also on the context of the newly-initiated criminal proceedings related to the overthrow of the constitutional order, in which several former officials – including the Minister of Defence at the material time – had been charged. The court concluded that the investigative body could have reasonably assumed that the applicant had been involved in the imputed offence and that he could hide weapons and ammunition in his properties. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which the Court of Cassation declared inadmissible for lack of merit on 10 December 2018. The decision was served on the applicant on 13 December 2018. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the searches conducted on 7 and 8 August 2018 were arbitrary and unlawful. He alleges, in particular, that the judicial warrant of 3 August 2018 lacked relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his homes being searched because it was solely based on information received from un unknown source. He also invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in relation to the manner in which the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction examined the investigator’s application seeking authorisation for the search. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the searches of 7 and 8 August 2018? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Buck v.   Germany , no. 41604/98, § 45, ECHR 2005 ‑ IV; Smirnov v.   Russia , no.   71362/01, § 44, ECHR 2007‑VII; and Avanesyan v. Russia , no.   41152/06, §§   42-44, 18 September 2014)? In particular:   (a)     were “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons adduced in the search warrant of 3 August 2018 to justify the searches?   (b)     were appropriate limits set out to confine the impact of the searches to reasonable bounds?   (c)     did the Armenian legislation and practice afford individuals adequate and effective safeguards against abuse?   2.     Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision as guaranteed under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention violated as regards the search warrant issued on 3   August 2018?