CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2026

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s696A079 { width:84.64%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s69B44500 { height:33.5pt } .s5CC56ED5 { width:9.4%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s85744D80 { width:35.2%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s692BB30A { width:32.98%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCEE5C84C { width:22.42%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s69304500 { height:33.1pt } .s267D1595 { width:9.4%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8A144885 { width:35.2%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCBB18309 { width:32.98%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s43BA4639 { width:22.42%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1ACE6575 { height:33.55pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 9 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 19152/18 Vardan GERAVETYAN and Others against Armenia lodged on 14 April 2018 communicated on 23 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns an alleged violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, resulting from a ban on visits and phone calls during their detention. On 17 July 2016 a group of armed men, including the applicants, stormed the premises of the Patrol Service Regiment of the Armenian Police in Yerevan, taking hostages and making political demands, including the resignation of the then President of Armenia. On 27 July 2016 Mr Aram Hakobyan (“the second applicant”) and Mr   Gagik Yeghiazaryan (“the third applicant”) were arrested and, two days later, placed in detention. On 1 August 2016 Mr Vardan Geravetyan (“the first applicant”) was arrested and placed in detention the following day. Also on 1 August 2016 investigators decided to ban the visits and phone calls of the second and third applicants, stating that this was necessary to ensure the implementation of future investigative measures in the criminal case and that the visits and phone calls could obstruct the establishment of the objective truth. On 3 August 2016 an investigator decided to ban the visits and phone calls of the first applicant with his family members, close relatives, the representatives of the media and other persons. The decision stated that other individuals had been involved in the commission of the criminal offences as well, and that such communications could adversely impact the completeness, objectivity, and comprehensiveness of the investigation. On 26 October 2016 the first applicant requested that the ban on visits be lifted entirely or at least in part. His request was refused by the investigative authorities’ letter of 22 November 2016, which stated that they did not consider it expedient ( նպատակահարմար ) to lift the ban and to allow visits. On 23 November 2016 the second and third applicants requested that the ban on visits be lifted entirely or at least in part but their requests were refused by the investigative authorities’ letter of 24 November 2016. The applicants unsuccessfully appealed the refusals to the prosecutor and subsequently before the courts but their appeals were dismissed on the merits. On 10 October 2017 the Court of Cassation declared their further appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. The decision was served on the applicants on 14 October 2017. In the meantime, the bill of indictment was finalised on 15 May 2017 in respect of the third applicant and, on 7 June 2017, in respect of the first and second applicants. The cases were subsequently brought before the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) for trial. On 23 June 2017 the District Court partially lifted the ban on visits and phone calls imposed in respect of the first and second applicants, insofar as it concerned family members and close relatives, thereby effectively leaving the ban in force in respect of persons other than family members and close relatives. On 23 October 2017 it did the same in respect of the third applicant. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the ban on visits and phone calls, imposed during their pre-trial detention and partially maintained thereafter, violated their right to respect for their private and family life. They further submit that, as of the date of lodging their application, their visits and phone calls remained partially restricted. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, as a result of the ban on visits and phone calls during their detention (see Khoroshenko v.   Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 106-126, ECHR 2015; Lebois v. Bulgaria , no. 67482/14, §§ 60-65, 19 October 2017; and Deltuva v. Lithuania , no.   38144/20, §§ 38-46, 21 March 2023)?   The parties are requested to update the Court on the current stage of the criminal proceedings against the applicants and to indicate until when the applicants’ visits and phone calls remained partially restricted.   The parties are also requested to provide a copy of the investigative authorities’ letter of 24 November 2016, refusing the requests of the second and third applicants.         APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. Vardan GERAVETYAN 1962 Armenian, Russian 2. Aram HAKOBYAN 1958 Armenian 3. Gagik YEGHIAZARYAN 1983   Armenian