THIRD SECTION
Application no. 66256/11
Hayk SAHAKYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 14 October 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hayk Sahakyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Mr Y. Khachatryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 31 August 2007 the applicant was charged under Article 112 § 1 of the Criminal Code for intentional infliction of a grave injury.
On 28 September 2007 the applicant was released on bail.
On 4 October 2007 the investigator decided to revoke bail and to detain the applicant. It appears that on the same day the applicant was detained.
Upon appeal, on 22 October 2007 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan annulled the investigator’s decision and ordered the applicant’s release. It stated, inter alia, that the applicant’s detention was in breach of the Convention.
On 13 December 2007 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan acquitted the applicant.
On 28 March 2008 this judgment was upheld by the Criminal Court of Appeal.
On 21 April 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance, seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in connection with the criminal proceedings against him, including his detention.
The claims for pecuniary damage included alleged expenses related to food parcels, lost earnings and transportation.
On 25 September 2009 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan examined and partially granted the applicant’s pecuniary claims. As regards the claim for non-pecuniary damage, it was dismissed because Armenian law did not provide for such a form of compensation.
On 26 October 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the District Court. The Ministry of Finance, in its turn, lodged an appeal against the judgment of the District Court in respect of pecuniary damage.
On 4 December 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and granted that of the Ministry of Finance, reducing the amount of the compensation for pecuniary damage awarded to the applicant. As regards the claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Court of Appeal terminated the proceedings on the ground that Armenian law did not provide for such a form of compensation and therefore the claim for non‑pecuniary damage could not be the subject of court examination.
On 14 December 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
On 1 July 2011 the Court of Cassation decided to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the decision of the Civil Court of Appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. Code of Criminal Procedure
According to Article 66 § 3, the person acquitted is also entitled to demand full compensation for real opportunities lost as a result of arrest, impleading as the accused, and conviction.
According to Article 66 § 4, the person acquitted is entitled to receive compensation for: 1) salary, pension, allowances or other incomes of which he was deprived; 2) damage inflicted as a result of seizure of property, confiscation by investigative bodies, arrest of property; 3) court fees paid; 4) lawyers’ fees; 5) fines paid when the verdict was executed.
2. Civil Code
According to Article 17 § 1, the person whose rights have been violated may claim full compensation for the damage suffered, unless the law or a contract envisages a lower amount of compensation.
According to Article 17 § 2, damages are the expenses borne or to be borne by the person whose rights have been violated, in connection with restoring the violated rights, loss of his property or damage to it (material damage), including lost earnings which the person would have gained in normal conditions of civil life, had his rights not been violated (lost income).
According to Article 1064 § 1, damage caused as a result of unlawful conviction, [unlawful] criminal prosecution, [unlawful] imposition of a preventive measure in the form of detention or a written undertaking not to leave, and [unlawful] imposition of an administrative penalty shall be compensated in full, in a procedure prescribed by law, by the Republic of Armenia, regardless of the fault of the officials of the body of inquiry, the investigating authority, the prosecutor’s office or the courts.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 that he was denied compensation for non-pecuniary damage for unlawful detention.
He also complains under Article 13 that the domestic law does not provide for an enforceable right to compensation of a non-pecuniary nature.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the fact that the applicant was denied compensation for non‑pecuniary damage for unlawful detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
2. Was the fact that no compensation for non-pecuniary damage was available to the applicant compatible with the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy