CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 February 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 527/18 Romik DANIAL against Armenia lodged on 8 December 2017 communicated on 31 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE During a referendum held on 6 December 2015 the applicant participated as an election observer affiliated to a local non-governmental organisation. At some point, he filmed a brawl between A.A., the president of the electoral commission, and H.D., a media representative. According to the applicant, soon then several people stormed into the polling station and tried to grab his camera. Eventually, one of them, namely V.H. took away the camera, whereafter all of them left. The applicant’s camera was later found at the polling station in a bag containing stationery. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint alleging a breach of his rights as an election observer. It appears that based on the testimony of the applicant and two other witnesses, including H.D., the police charged V.H. with hindrance to the applicant’s activities as an election observer committed with violence. According to the applicant, V.H. was later found guilty as charged. The investigator also took statements from the witnesses to the incident and held confrontations but, in the end, decided not to prosecute four other alleged perpetrators due to lack of corpus delicti . The applicant lodged appeals against the said decision pointing to several alleged deficiencies of the investigation. He complained, among other things, that two of the aforementioned witnesses, as well as himself had also identified M.D. as another perpetrator of the alleged offence. However, referring to M.D.’s absence from the country and the impossibility to question him, the investigator had found that “the applicant’s and witness H.D.’s statements” had not been sufficient to charge him. Moreover, while H.D. had also identified K.M. as a third perpetrator, the latter had never been submitted to an identification parade. The applicant’s appeals were unsuccessful and the decision of the last-instance court was notified to him on 9 June 2017. The applicant complains that the authorities failed to discharge their positive duty under Article 10 of the Convention to protect his right to freedom of expression as an election observer because they did not carry out an effective investigation into the alleged hindrance to his activities. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the State’s positive duties under Article 10 of the Convention to protect the applicant’s right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under that Article (see Gaši and Others v. Serbia , no.   24738/19, §§   77-78 and § 81, 6 September 2022)?