{"id":22142,"date":"2024-01-18T13:35:19","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T13:35:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22142"},"modified":"2024-01-18T13:35:19","modified_gmt":"2024-01-18T13:35:19","slug":"case-of-loretsyan-v-armenia-21702-22","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22142","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF LORETSYAN v. ARMENIA – 21702\/22"},"content":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights
\nFOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF LORETSYAN v. ARMENIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 21702\/22)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 January 2024<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Loretsyan v. Armenia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nFaris Vehabovi\u0107, President,
\nAnja Seibert-Fohr,
\nAnne Louise Bormann, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 20 April 2022.<\/p>\n

2. The applicant was represented by Mr L. Sahakyan, a lawyer practising in Arinj village.<\/p>\n

3. The Armenian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. His complaint falls to be examined under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kud\u0142a v.\u00a0Poland [GC], no.\u00a030210\/96, \u00a7 110, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 41-44, ECHR 2006\u2011X, with further references).<\/p>\n

7. In the leading cases of Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629\/11, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a048 et seq., 20 October 2016, and Muradkhanyan v. Armenia, no.\u00a012895\/06, 5\u00a0June 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s pre-trial detention was excessive and unreasonable.<\/p>\n

9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, \u00a7 66), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Declares the complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 admissible;<\/p>\n

2. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n

3. Holds<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Faris Vehabovi\u0107
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n

___________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention
\n(lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nPeriod of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nCourt which issued detention order\/ examined appeal<\/strong><\/td>\nSpecific defects<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/td>\n

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[2]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

21702\/22<\/p>\n

20\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Gevorg LORETSYAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Sahakyan Levon<\/p>\n

Arinj village<\/td>\n

04\/12\/2019 – 19\/10\/2022<\/td>\nCourt of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Criminal Court of Appeal<\/td>\n

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to the excessive length of detention on remand<\/td>\n

2,000<\/td>\n250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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…<\/p>\n

Read more →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-available-in-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22142","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=22142"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22142\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22143,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22142\/revisions\/22143"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=22142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=22142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=22142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}