FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ABROYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
(Applications nos. 26897/18 and 57499/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 June 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Abroyan and Others v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Sébastien Biancheri, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 5 § 1, Article 6 § 1, Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their former Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, and subsequently by Mr K. Andreasyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to dismiss the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;
the withdrawal of Mr Vahe Grigoryan, the judge elected in respect of Armenia, from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court);
Having deliberated in private on 21 May 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicants’ arrest at two different demonstrations and, in so far as it concerns application no. 26897/18, an alleged lack of access to a court. The applicants relied on Article 5 § 1, Article 6 § 1, Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention.
APPLICATION No. 26897/182. On 23 June 2014 Mr A. Abroyan (“the first applicant”) participated in a demonstration near the headquarters of the Public Services Regulatory Commission to protest against its decision to raise the price of electricity. The police formed a cordon preventing the demonstrators from accessing the building. At a certain point the demonstrators blocked an adjacent street (Saryan Street) and continued to do so despite orders from the police to clear it. Shortly afterwards the applicant was arrested for “disobeying a lawful order of the police”, an administrative offence under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the Code”).
3. The police subsequently applied to the Administrative Court, seeking to have a fine imposed on the applicant under Article 182 of the Code. The applicant lodged a counterclaim against the police, alleging, among other things, a breach of his rights to liberty and freedom of assembly.
4. The Administrative Court dismissed the police’s claim, finding that it had not been established that any police officer had ordered the applicant to clear the road. The police officer who had arrested the applicant had no recollection of giving him any order. Nor could such an order be heard in the video footage of the event submitted by the police. Accordingly, the conditions for imposing a fine for an administrative offence under Article 182 of the Code had not been met. The court also rejected the applicant’s counterclaim.
5. That judgment was upheld on appeal and the final decision of the Court of Cassation was served on the applicant on 28 November 2017.
Application no. 57499/186. On 2 December 2013 Ms Z. Hovhannisyan and Ms O. Azatyan (“the second applicant” and “the third applicant” respectively), together with two other protestors, attempted to attach a poster reading “Serzh’s DADDY has arrived” to the railing of an overpass on one of the main streets of Yerevan. The poster alluded to the then President, Serzh Sargsyan, and the State visit of the Russian President, thereby conveying the applicants’ discontent with the foreign policy of the Armenian President at the time. Their attempt to attach the poster to the railing was interrupted by the police. The applicants were arrested and taken to a police station, where records of their administrative arrest and commission of the offence under Article 182 of the Code were prepared. Their arrest was justified under Article 259 of the Code, which permitted an individual to be deprived of his or her liberty in order to: (i) halt the commission of an administrative offence where other preventive measures had proved ineffective; (ii) establish a person’s identity; (iii) draw up an administrative offence record, unless this could be done on the spot; or (iv) ensure the timely and orderly examination of cases of administrative offences and the execution of decisions in respect thereof.
7. On 23 June 2014 the applicants lodged a claim against the police, contesting the lawfulness of their interference with, inter alia, their rights to liberty, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. They argued, inter alia, that the police had neither ordered them to stop any specific action on their part nor presented any legal grounds for prohibiting their protest. The applicants also complained that the police had not attempted to check their identity, or to draw up an administrative offence record on the spot before arresting them, contrary to the requirements of Article 259 of the Code.
8. On 18 June 2015 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ claim, finding, in particular, that “by hanging up a poster with certain content”, they had violated public order, and that “from the perspective of expressing an opinion”, this had constituted “an unlawful exercise of that right”. The court held that both the police order for the applicants to stop hanging up the poster and the applicants’ subsequent arrest had been lawful, and that their argument regarding the unlawfulness of the police’s actions was unfounded.
9. That judgment was upheld on appeal and the final decision of the Court of Cassation was served on the applicants on 7 May 2018.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS10. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION11. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their deprivation of liberty on 23 June 2014 (in respect of the first applicant) and on 2 December 2013 (in respect of the second and third applicants) had been unlawful and arbitrary.
12. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
13. The general principles concerning Article 5 § 1 have been summarised in S., V. and A. v. Denmark ([GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, §§ 73‑77, 22 October 2018). It is not enough for the deprivation of liberty to have been carried out in conformity with national law; it must also have been necessary in the circumstances (ibid., § 77).
14. The applicants were deprived of liberty for the purpose of bringing them before the relevant legal authority on suspicion that they had committed an administrative offence. Their deprivation of liberty therefore fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (compare Berkman v. Russia, no. 46712/15, § 36, 1 December 2020, and Matchavariani v. Georgia, no. 46852/21, § 61, 20 May 2025).
15. The first applicant was arrested for his alleged failure to comply with a police order. However, as established by the domestic courts, no order had been given to the applicant, let alone disobeyed by him. In such circumstances, his arrest was not based on a reasonable suspicion of his having committed the imputed offence and was thus arbitrary. Having reached this conclusion, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning his allegedly delayed release from the police station.
16. As regards the second and third applicants’ arrest, even assuming the lawfulness of the police order which they had disobeyed, the commission of an administrative offence alone was insufficient to impose such a measure; deprivation of liberty had to be necessary, pursuant to Article 259 of the Code. However, the domestic authorities never assessed in any meaningful manner the necessity of the applicants’ arrest and their transfer to the police station. Specifically, they failed to examine whether the police had taken any steps to establish the applicants’ identities, to draw up an offence record on the spot, or whether there had been any other grounds listed under Article 259 to justify their arrest. Nor did the Government substantiate that any lawful grounds for the arrest had existed. The Court therefore finds a breach of the applicants’ right to liberty on account of a lack of reasons and legal grounds for their arrest.
17. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF Articles 10 and 11 of THE CONVENTION18. The applicants complained that by arresting them during the respective demonstrations, the authorities had breached their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
Application no. 26897/1819. The first applicant’s complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted where appropriate in the light of Article 10 (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 85, ECHR 2015). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
20. The general principles concerning Article 11 have been summarised in Kudrevičius and Others (cited above, with further references).
21. The applicant’s arrest prevented him from participating in the demonstration and thus amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of assembly. The Court has already found that there lacked a reasonable suspicion justifying the applicant’s arrest and was thus arbitrary (see paragraph 15 above). It is therefore difficult to accept that the resulting interference with his Article 11 rights was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. In any event, it has not been shown that there was any good reason for the police’s interference with it. Such interference was thus not “necessary in a democratic society” under that Article.
22. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 11.
Application no. 57499/1823. The second and third applicants were prevented from hanging a political poster on a railing and were subsequently arrested for their conduct. Given the nature of the applicants’ complaint and the scope of the event they staged, the Court considers that the event constituted predominantly an expression of opinion, all the more so since it involved only four persons and lasted a very short time (compare Bumbeș v. Romania, no. 18079/15, § 69, 3 May 2022). It therefore finds it appropriate to examine the complaint under Article 10, interpreted in the light of Article 11 (ibid., § 70).
24. The complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
25. The general principles concerning Article 10 have been summarised in Pentikäinen v. Finland ([GC], no. 11882/10, ECHR 2015, with further references).
26. As established above, the applicants’ protest constituted an expression of opinion within the meaning of Article 10, and their arrest therefore amounted to an interference with their right to freedom of expression. The Court has already found that the applicants’ arrest fell short of the lawfulness requirement (see paragraph 16 above). Accordingly, the interference in question was also unlawful in terms of Article 10 (compare Bryan and Others v. Russia, no. 22515/14, § 97, 27 June 2023, and Friedrich and Others v. Poland, nos. 25344/20 and 17 others, § 255, 20 June 2024). Furthermore, given that the applicants’ conduct was clearly of a non-violent nature, the reasons given by the domestic authorities for their arrest were insufficient to justify the interference with their right to freedom of expression.
27. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the second and third applicants.
OTHER COMPLAINTS28. In application no. 26897/18, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised in that application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on this complaint (compare Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
29. The first applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) and the second and third applicants claimed a total of EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The first applicant claimed EUR 4,945 and the second and third applicants claimed a total of EUR 4,700 in respect of the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
30. The Government contested those claims.
31. The Court awards each applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
32. Having regard to the documents in its possession and its case-law (see Suren Antonyan v. Armenia, no. 20140/23, § 151, 23 January 2025, with further references), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants a joint sum of EUR 2,000, covering the costs for the proceedings before it, to be paid to the applicants’ principal lawyer, Mr T. Yegoryan, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. It dismisses the remainder of the claim.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicants’ arrest and the complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention as regards the second and third applicants; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention as regards the first applicant; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints in application no. 26897/18; Holds that the respondent State is to pay within three months the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) jointly to the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid to their principal lawyer, Mr T. Yegoryan; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 June 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Martina Keller María Elósegui
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of birth
Nationality
Represented by
1.
26897/18
Abroyan v. Armenia
28/05/2018
Armen ABROYAN
1981
Armenian
Tigran YEGORYAN
Lusine HAKOBYAN
Sergey GRIGORYAN
2.
57499/18
Hovhannisyan and Azatyan v. Armenia
07/11/2018
Zaruhi HOVHANNISYAN
1974
Armenian
Olya AZATYAN
1981
Armenian
Tigran YEGORYAN
Lusine HAKOBYAN