Last Updated on January 18, 2024 by LawEuro
European Court of Human Rights
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF LORETSYAN v. ARMENIA
(Application no. 21702/22)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 January 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Loretsyan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Anne Louise Bormann, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 April 2022.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr L. Sahakyan, a lawyer practising in Arinj village.
3. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 of the Convention
5. The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. His complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
6. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
7. In the leading cases of Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, §§ 48 et seq., 20 October 2016, and Muradkhanyan v. Armenia, no. 12895/06, 5 June 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, 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 considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive and unreasonable.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, § 66), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the complaints under Article 5 § 3 admissible;
2. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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;
(b) 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
Acting Deputy Registrar President
___________
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention)
| Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
|
Representative’s name and location | Period of detention | Court which issued detention order/ examined appeal | Specific defects | Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros) |
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2] |
| 21702/22
20/04/2022 |
Gevorg LORETSYAN
1994 |
Sahakyan Levon
Arinj village |
04/12/2019 – 19/10/2022 | Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan
Criminal Court of Appeal |
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to the excessive length of detention on remand |
2,000 | 250 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply