CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 janvier 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 93 January 2007 Mkrtchyan v. Armenia - 6562/03 Judgment 11.1.2007 [Section III] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Unlawful administrative penalty imposed for breach of rules on holding demonstrations: violation   Facts : In 2002 the applicant took part in an authorised demonstration on Freedom Square in Yerevan, during which he called on the participants to leave Freedom Square and to follow him in a procession towards the Parliament building. Later on that evening he was arrested for organising an unlawful procession and having violated the prescribed rules on organising demonstrations and street processions. The district court found that he had committed an administrative offence and fined him the equivalent of one Euro. The court of appeal upheld this decision. Law : The fine had been imposed on the applicant for a violation of the prescribed rules for organising and holding rallies and street processions, pursuant the Code of Administrative Offences. Therefore, the interference had a basis in domestic law. However, it was in dispute between the parties whether at the material time there had been any legal act in Armenia which envisaged the “prescribed rules” referred to in the Code. The Government alleged that the “prescribed rules” were envisaged by the former USSR laws, while the applicant contended that the legal acts of the former USSR were no longer valid and applicable in Armenia following its independence and that no other “prescribed rules” existed in Armenia. The Court noted the absence of any domestic provision clearly stating whether the former USSR laws remained or did not remain in force on the territory of Armenia. The Court also drew attention to the absence of any domestic case-law concerning the disputed matter. The domestic courts also had failed to refer to any legal act prescribing the rules for holding rallies and street processions which the applicant had been found to have violated. At the relevant time, there had been no legal act applicable in Armenia which contained those rules, the relevant law having been adopted only in 2004. The Court accepted that it may take some time for a country to establish its legislative framework in a transition period, but it could not accept the delay of almost thirteen years to be justifiable, especially when such a fundamental right as freedom of peaceful assembly was at stake. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes