FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ASHGHYAN AND POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA
(Applications nos. 5293/16 and 5295/16)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 June 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ashghyan and Poghosyan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Andreas Zünd, President,
Vahe Grigoryan,
Sébastien Biancheri, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 May 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the unlawful deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the Convention.
THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. 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 Convention6. The applicants complained of the unlawful deprivation of liberty. They relied on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
7. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 of the Convention requires that any deprivation of liberty be “lawful”, which includes the condition that it must be effected “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 74, 22 October 2018).
Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with
the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness. The notion of “arbitrariness” under Article 5 § 1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention (see Ishkhanyan v. Armenia, no. 5297/16, § 154, 13 February 2025, with further references). The Court further reiterates that the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention requires that an arrest in the context of criminal proceedings must be based on reasonable suspicion of having committed an
offence (ibid., § 155, with further references).
8. In the leading case of Ishkhanyan (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, including the Government’s objections related to the admissibility of the case, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court dismisses the Government’s objections (ibid., §§ 108-20) and considers that in the instant case the applicants’ arrest was not based on a reasonable suspicion of them having committed an offence (compare ibid., § 161). Having reached that conclusion, the Court does not find it necessary to address the remainder of the applicants’ complaints concerning the lawfulness of their police custody.
10. These complaints, as described in the appended table, are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful deprivation of liberty in view of the reasons cited in the appended table and finds it not necessary to examine separately additional grievances raised by the applicants in relation to the lawfulness of their police custody; Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; 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’ claims 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.
Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful deprivation of liberty)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Date of arrest
Specific defects
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
5293/16
23/12/2015
Abraham ASHGHYAN
1992
Maralyan Anna
Strasbourg
23/06/2015
lack of reasonable suspicion
2,000
250
5295/16
23/12/2015
Narine POGHOSYAN
1990
Harutyunyan Hasmik
Yerevan
23/06/2015
lack of reasonable suspicion
2,000
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.