BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF
MKRTCHYAN v. ARMENIA
(Application
no. 6562/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January
2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mkrtchyan v. Armenia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
President,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr V.
Berger, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 7 December 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 6562/03) against the Republic
of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by an Armenian national, Mr Armen Mkrtchyan (“the
applicant”), on 25 November 2002.
- The
applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by
Mr N. Baghdasaryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. The
Armenian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, Representative of the
Republic of Armenia at the European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant alleged that the interference with his right to freedom of
peaceful assembly was contrary to the guarantees of Article 11 of the
Convention, in particular, that it was not prescribed by law.
- The
application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52
§ 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the
Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the
Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
- By
a decision of 20 October 2005, the Court declared the application
partly admissible.
- The
applicant and the Government each filed further written observations
(Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber having decided, after consulting the
parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3
in fine), the parties replied in writing to each other's
observations.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Yerevan.
- The
applicant at the material time was a member of the “Republic”
Party (¦Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛáõݧ
Ïáõë³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝ).
- On
10 May 2002 the “Republic” Party applied to the Mayor of
Yerevan for permission to hold a demonstration on Freedom Square in
Yerevan on 14 May 2002.
- On
13 May 2002 the Mayor authorised the demonstration as requested.
- The
demonstration was held as planned on 14 May 2002, at around 15.00, on
Freedom Square. It was jointly organised by the “Republic”
Party and six other political parties. The applicant participated in
the demonstration.
- Following
the demonstration, at around 16.00, the applicant called on
participants to hold a procession through the Baghramyan Avenue
towards the Parliament building. It appears that a crowd of people
followed the applicant in a procession along the Avenue.
- The
same day, at 23.10, the applicant was arrested and brought to the
Arabkir District Police Station of Yerevan (ÐÐ
áëïÇϳÝáõÃÛ³Ý
ºñ¨³Ý ù³Õ³ùÇ
²ñ³µÏÇñÇ µ³ÅÇÝ).
The record of an administrative offence (í³ñã³Ï³Ý
Çñ³í³Ë³ËïÙ³Ý
³ñӳݳ·ñáõÃÛáõÝ)
prepared by the police officers stated that the applicant had
“organised an unlawful procession and violated the prescribed
rules for holding demonstrations and street processions”.
- On
15 May 2002 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan
(ºñ¨³Ý
ù³Õ³ùÇ Î»ÝïñáÝ
¨ Üáñù-سñ³ß
ѳٳÛÝùÝ»ñÇ
³é³çÇÝ ³ïÛ³ÝÇ
¹³ï³ñ³Ý) examined
the applicant's case. The District Court found that:
“[The applicant], in violation of the prescribed
rules for holding street processions and demonstrations, on 14 May
2002 at around 16.00 o'clock, participated with a group of people in
an unauthorised procession. Thus, he has committed an offence
envisaged by Article 180.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences
[(ì³ñã³Ï³Ý
Çñ³í³Ë³ËïáõÙÝ»ñÇ
í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É
ÐÐ ûñ»Ýë·Çñù)].
Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the
personality of [the applicant], the court finds it necessary to
impose an administrative penalty in the form of a fine.”
- The
District Court imposed a fine in the amount of 500 Armenian drams
(AMD) (approx. EUR 1 at the material time). The decision was final
and not subject to appeal.
- On
24 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Civil Court of
Appeal (ÐÐ ù³Õ³ù³ódzϳÝ
·áñÍ»ñáí
í»ñ³ùÝÝÇã
¹³ï³ñ³Ý). In his
appeal the applicant argued that in accordance with the Constitution
he had a right to contest the decision of the District Court before a
higher court. He further argued that the interference with his right
to freedom of assembly was not prescribed by law, as there did not
exist any law which prescribed the rules that the applicant had
allegedly violated. Furthermore, he expressly requested the Court of
Appeal to name any such law if it existed.
- On
14 June 2002 the Civil Court of Appeal examined the applicant's
appeal and found that:
“On 14 May 2002 at around 15.00 o'clock [the
applicant] participated in an authorised demonstration on the Freedom
Square in Yerevan. Thereafter, at around 16:00 [the applicant] with a
group of people participated in an unauthorised procession through
the Baghramyan Avenue, during which he headed the procession [. For
this reason] he was brought to the [police station].
The fact of the applicant heading an unauthorised
procession is characterised as an offence envisaged under Article
180.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, therefore, he must be
subjected to administrative liability.”
- On
24 June 2002 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Court
of Cassation (ÐÐ í×é³µ»Ï
¹³ï³ñ³Ý).
- By
a letter of 1 July 2002 the Court of Cassation informed the applicant
that the domestic legislation did not provide for a right to lodge a
cassation appeal against the decisions which the applicant sought to
contest.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
A. Code of Administrative Offences (6 December 1985)
- The
relevant provision of the Code reads as follows:
Article 180.1
“Violation of the prescribed rules for organising
or holding assemblies, rallies, street processions and demonstrations
shall be punishable by imposition of a penalty in the amount of fifty
to one hundred per cent of the fixed minimum wage, or, in exceptional
cases where, in the circumstances of the case, taking into account
the offenders personality, the application of these measures would be
deemed insufficient, by imposition of administrative detention not
exceeding fifteen days.”
B. The Decree of the Chairmanship of the Supreme Soviet
of the USSR on “Rules for Organising and Holding of Assemblies,
Rallies, Street Processions and Demonstrations in the USSR”
(28 July 1988) (êêÐØ
¶»ñ³·áõÛÝ
ëáí»ïÇ Ý³Ë³·³ÑáõÃÛ³Ý
Ññ³Ù³Ý³·ÇñÁ
êêÐØ-áõÙ ÅáÕáíÝ»ñÇ,
ÙÇïÇÝ·Ý»ñÇ,
÷áÕáó³ÛÇÝ
»ñûñÇ áõ
óáõÛó»ñÇ
ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåÙ³Ý
¨ ³ÝóϳóÙ³Ý
ϳñ·Ç Ù³ëÇÝ)
- This
Decree defined the relevant rules, such as the requirement of prior
authorisation, the authority deciding on requests for authorisation
(i.e. the executive committee of the relevant local council of
people's deputies), the procedure for making a request and its
content, a decision to be taken following the examination of the
request, a possibility to appeal this decision to a superior
authority, requirements to be met when holding the mass event (e.g.
that the event must take place at the time and place specified in the
request, public order must be respected, no carrying of arms, etc.),
reasons for refusal of an authorisation, and the grounds on which
this or that particular event could be dispersed (e.g. absence of a
request, refusal of an authorisation, violation of public order,
etc.).
C. The USSR Law on “Approving Decrees of the
Chairmanship of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on Making Amendments
and Supplements to Certain USSR Legal Acts” (28 October 1988)
(êêÐØ ûñ»ÝùÁ
êêÐØ áñáß
ûñ»Ýë¹ñ³Ï³Ý
³Ïï»ñáõÙ
÷á÷áËáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ
áõ Éñ³óáõÙÝ»ñ
ϳï³ñ»Éáõ Ù³ëÇÝ
êêÐØ ¶»ñ³·áõÛÝ
ëáí»ïÇ Ý³Ë³·³ÑáõÃÛ³Ý
Ññ³Ù³Ý³·ñ»ñÁ
ѳëï³ï»Éáõ
Ù³ëÇÝ)
- By
adopting the Law, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR approved a number of
decrees of the Chairmanship, including the above Decree of 28 July
1988 (see paragraph 21 above).
D. Armenia's Declaration of Independence (23 August
1990) (Ðéã³Ï³·Çñ
г۳ëï³ÝÇ
³ÝϳËáõÃÛ³Ý
Ù³ëÇÝ)
- The
relevant provisions of the Declaration read as follows:
“The Supreme Soviet of the Armenian [Soviet
Socialist Republic] ... based on the principles enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the general norms of
international law ... [and] aiming to achieve the establishment of a
democratic society ruled by law;
Declares
1. The [Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic]
is renamed as the Republic of Armenia...
2. ... Only the Constitution and laws of the
Republic of Armenia are valid on the ... territory of the Republic of
Armenia.”
E. Constitutional Law on the Foundations of Independent
Statehood
(25 September 1991) (ÐÐ
ë³Ñٳݳ¹ñ³Ï³Ý
ûñ»ÝùÁ ³ÝϳË
å»ï³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý
ÑÇÙݳ¹ñáõÛÃÝ»ñÇ
Ù³ëÇÝ)
- The
relevant provision of the Law reads as follows:
Article 16
“Until the adoption of a new constitution of the
Republic of Armenia, the valid Constitution and laws are effective to
the extent to which they do not contradict this Law and the legal
acts adopted on the basis of the Declaration of Independence.”
F. The CIS Convention (8 December 1991) signed and
ratified by Armenia on 21 December 1991 and 18 February 1992
respectively (²äÐ-Ç
ëï»ÕÍÙ³Ý Ù³ëÇÝ
ѳٳӳÛݳ·ÇñÁ)
- The
relevant Article of the Convention reads as follows:
Article 11
“From the moment of signing this Convention, norms
of third states, including those of the former USSR, shall not be
applied on the territories of the signatory states.”
G. The Constitution of the Republic of Armenia (5 July
1995, in force at the material time)
- The
relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows:
Preamble
“The Armenian nation, taking as a basis the
fundamental principles of the Armenian statehood enshrined in the
Armenia's Declaration of Independence ... adopts the Constitution of
the Republic of Armenia.”
Article 4
“The State guarantees the protection of human
rights and freedoms on the basis of the Constitution and laws, and in
accordance with the principles and norms of international law.”
Article 26
“Citizens have the right to hold peaceful
assemblies, rallies, processions and demonstrations without carrying
arms.”
Article 44
“No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of
the rights and freedoms enshrined in Articles 23-27 of the
Constitution other than such as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, for
the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights, freedoms, honour and reputation of others.”
Article 116
“From the date of entry into force of this
Constitution, (1) the Constitution of 1978 with subsequent amendments
and supplements, and constitutional laws lose their force; (2) the
laws and other legal acts of the Republic of Armenia are effective to
the extent to which they do not contradict this Constitution.”
H. Presidential Decree on Public Administration of
Yerevan (6 May 1997) (ÐÐ
ݳ˳·³ÑÇ Ññ³Ù³Ý³·ÇñÁ
ºñ¨³Ý ù³Õ³ùáõÙ
å»ï³Ï³Ý ϳé³í³ñÙ³Ý
Ù³ëÇÝ)
- The
relevant provision of the Decree reads as follows:
Article 1.5
“The Mayor of Yerevan shall decide on the issue of
holding assemblies, rallies, processions, demonstrations and other
mass events in Yerevan in accordance with the rules prescribed by
law.”
I. The Law on Holding Assemblies, Rallies, Street
Processions and Demonstrations adopted on 28 April 2004 (ÐÐ
ûñ»ÝùÁ ÅáÕáíÝ»ñ,
ѳÝñ³Ñ³í³ùÝ»ñ,
»ñûñ ¨ óáõÛó»ñ
³ÝóϳóÝ»Éáõ
Ù³ëÇÝ)
- On
28 April 2004 the Armenian Parliament adopted a law regulating the
procedure for holding assemblies, rallies, street processions and
demonstrations. Article 16 of this law stated that, from the date of
its entry into force, the Decree of the Chairmanship of the Supreme
Soviet of the USSR on “Rules for Organising and Holding of
Assemblies, Rallies, Street Processions and Demonstrations in the
USSR” of 28 July 1988 was not to be applied on the territory of
the Republic of Armenia.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the sanction imposed on him unlawfully
interfered with his right to freedom of peaceful assembly since it
was not prescribed by law. He invoked Article 11 of the Convention
which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom
of peaceful assembly...
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the
exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others...”
A. The parties' submissions
- The
Government submitted that the rules for organising and holding
demonstrations and street processions, referred to in Article 180.1
of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO), were prescribed by the
USSR Law on “Approving Decrees of the Chairmanship of the
Supreme Soviet of the USSR on Making Amendments and Supplements to
Certain USSR Legal Acts” of 28 October 1988 (hereafter, the
Law) which approved, inter alia, the Decree on “Rules
for Organising and Holding of Assemblies, Rallies, Street Processions
and Demonstrations in the USSR” of 28 July 1988 (hereafter, the
Decree). The Law was adopted before Armenia's independence of 23
August 1990, but continued to be valid following independence by
virtue of Article 16 of the Constitutional Law on the Foundations of
Independent Statehood of 25 September 1991, since the phrase “valid
Constitution and laws” referred to in that Article also
included the laws of the former USSR. Thus, from 1991 to 1995 the Law
continued to operate as a law of the Republic of Armenia. Following
the adoption of the Constitution on 5 July 1995, the Law continued to
be valid by virtue of Article 116 § 2 of the Constitution.
- The
applicant submitted that a law must be accessible and foreseeable.
The Law was not accessible since he was not able to find it.
Furthermore, he asked why, if the Law was valid, the courts failed to
refer to it. In any event, the Law was not valid in Armenia because
of Article 11 of the CIS Convention of 8 December 1991 which
prohibited the application of the former USSR laws on the territory
of the signatory states. This Convention was signed and ratified by
Armenia on 8 December 1991 and 18 February 1992, respectively.
- In
their further observations, the Government submitted that the Law was
accessible since it was published in Bulletin no. 31 of the Supreme
Soviet of the USSR of 3 August 1988. Article 11 of the CIS Convention
did not apply to the Law, because the Law, by the time when the
Republic of Armenia joined this Convention, was already operating as
a law of the Republic of Armenia by virtue of Article 16 of the
Constitutional Law of 25 September 1991. Following 1995 it
continued to operate on the basis of the Constitution.
- In
his further observations, the applicant submitted that a law which
had lost its force in 1991 due to the CIS Convention could not
re-acquire force in 1995 by virtue of the Constitution. Furthermore,
the Decree could not be applied in practice since it contained
concepts which did not exist any more after the dissolution of the
USSR, such as an “executive committee of the local council of
people's deputies” and a “superior authority” to
which the executive committee's decision could be appealed.
- In
the proceedings on the merits, the Government submitted that the Law
was valid and applicable in practice. It would have been irrational
to terminate the validity of all previously adopted laws and legal
acts from the date when the Republic of Armenia became independent
and did not yet have its own legal system, because then the country
would have faced a legal crisis. Thus, not only the Law but also many
other laws adopted during the USSR period continued and still
continue to be valid in the Republic of Armenia. As an example of
this serves the Decision of the Supreme Council of Armenia of 26
February 1992 on “Putting into Application of the Law of the
Republic of Armenia on Enterprises and Entrepreneurial Activities”,
paragraph 15 of which stated that the application of the former USSR
laws on “Cooperative Activity in the USSR” and “State
Enterprises (Unions)” was to be allowed on the territory of the
Republic of Armenia. Also, until the adoption of relevant rules on 23
May 2002, entire road traffic in Armenia was regulated by the Decree
of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs of 2 November 1979. Finally,
in accordance with legislative technical rules, a legal act is
applicable in the country until a decision on its termination is
adopted. Thus, a new law on holding demonstrations and rallies was
adopted in Armenia on 28 April 2004, Article 16 of which stated that,
from the date of entry into force of this law, the Decree was not to
be applied on the territory of the Republic of Armenia.
- The
Government further repeated their submissions that Article 11 of the
CIS Convention did not apply to the Law. It concerned only the USSR
legal acts which were adopted within the short period from the moment
of Armenia's independence until the dissolution of the USSR in
December 1991. All other USSR legal acts adopted before Armenia's
independence, including the Law, had been already recognised by
Armenia as constituting part of its own legislation by virtue of
Article 16 of the Constitutional Law of 25 September 1991. The
Government further submitted that the Law applied to the entire USSR
territory and was therefore an integral part of the legislation of
the former Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR). Thus, it was
directly transformed into the legislation of the Republic of Armenia
on the basis of Articles 1 and 2 of the Armenia's Declaration of
Independence.
- In
reply, the applicant repeated that the Law could not be valid by
virtue of Article 11 of the CIS Convention. He further submitted
that, in accordance with Article 1 of the Declaration of
Independence, the former ASSR was succeeded by the Republic of
Armenia. Thus, according to Article 2 of the Declaration, only the
laws of the former ASSR were valid on the territory of the Republic
of Armenia, and not those of the former USSR.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Whether there was an interference with the exercise
of the freedom of peaceful assembly
- It
has not been disputed between the parties that the applicant's
conviction constituted an interference with his right to freedom of
peaceful assembly. The Court recalls that the term “restrictions”
used in Article 11 § 2 cannot be interpreted as not
including measures – such as punitive measures – taken
not before or during but after a meeting (Ezelin v. France,
judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 202, § 39). The Court
concludes that there has been an interference with the applicant's
right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
2. Whether the interference was justified
- An
interference will constitute a breach of Article 11 unless it is
“prescribed by law”, pursues one or more legitimate aims
under paragraph 2 and is “necessary in a democratic society”
for the achievement of those aims.
- The
Court reiterates that the expression “prescribed by law”
in Article 11 of the Convention not only requires that the impugned
measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to
the quality of law in question. The law should be accessible to the
persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable
them – if need be, with appropriate advice – to foresee,
to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences
which a given action may entail (see, for example, Sunday Times v.
the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979,
Series A no. 30, p. 31, § 49; Rekvényi v. Hungary
[GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999 III; Rotaru v.
Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000 V;
Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR
2004 I). The Court also recalls that such factors as the
national courts' lack of reference to any legal provision as a basis
for the interference and the apparent inconsistencies of case-law
compared to the national legislation may constitute grounds for the
failure of a given legal provision to meet the requirement of
foreseeability (see, in the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
Baklanov v. Russia, no. 68443/01, § 46, 9 June 2005).
- The
Court notes that the fine was imposed on the applicant under Article
180.1 of the CAO, which prescribed a penalty for the violation of the
prescribed rules for organising and holding rallies and street
processions. Therefore, the interference had a basis in domestic law.
It has not been disputed that the CAO was accessible and the Court
does not have reason to doubt that. It remains, therefore, to be
determined whether this provision was foreseeable.
- The
Court notes that it is in dispute between the parties whether at the
material time there was any legal act in Armenia which envisaged the
“prescribed rules” referred to in Article 180.1 of the
CAO. The Government alleged that the “prescribed rules”
were envisaged by the Law and the Decree, while the applicant
contended that these were legal acts of the former USSR and were no
longer valid and applicable in Armenia following its independence.
Thus, according to him, no “prescribed rules” existed in
Armenia which he was found to have violated. In support of their
arguments, both parties advanced their own interpretation of various
domestic and international provisions, such as Armenia's Declaration
of Independence, the Constitutional Law on the Foundations of
Independent Statehood, the Constitution of 1995 and the CIS
Convention.
- In
this respect, the Court notes that these documents allow various
interpretations as to the applicability of the former USSR laws.
There is no domestic provision which clearly stated whether the
former USSR laws remained or did not remain in force on the territory
of Armenia. While the Decision of the Supreme Council of Armenia of
26 February 1992, as pointed out by the Government, explicitly
allowed the application of two former USSR laws on the territory of
Armenia (see paragraph 34 above), no such decision was ever adopted
in respect of the Law or the Decree. Furthermore, the Court does not
agree with the Government that Armenia would have faced a legal
crisis if the former USSR laws were no longer applied after its
independence, since it is clear from Articles 1 and 2 of Armenia's
Declaration of Independence that all the legal acts of the former
ASSR, which included a constitution and all the vital codes, were
transformed into legal acts of the newly independent Republic of
Armenia. It is not obvious, however, from the wording of these
provisions whether the same applied to the former USSR laws.
- The
Court recalls that its power to review compliance with domestic law
is limited as it is in the first place for the national authorities
to interpret and apply that law. The Court, however, would draw
attention to the absence of any domestic case-law concerning the
disputed matter. Notwithstanding the Court's request, the Government
failed to submit any examples of domestic practice, such as copies of
any court decisions or judgments which would clarify this issue or at
least make references to any former USSR laws, in general, or the Law
and the Decree, in particular. Furthermore, the domestic courts in
the present case also failed to refer to any legal act which
prescribed the rules for holding rallies and street processions which
the applicant was found to have violated. Thus, having regard to the
domestic courts' lack of reference to any legal provision prescribing
the rules in question and to the absence of any case-law concerning
the applicability of the former USSR laws in Armenia following its
independence, the Court considers that the law in question, namely
the “prescribed rules” referred to in Article 180.1 of
the CAO, was not formulated with such precision as to enable the
applicant to foresee, to a degree that was reasonable in the
circumstances, the consequences of his actions (see, mutatis
mutandis, in the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
Baklanov, cited above). The Court notes that following the
dissolution of the USSR there was no legal act applicable in Armenia
which contained these rules and the relevant law was adopted only on
28 April 2004. The Court accepts that it may take some time for a
country to establish its legislative framework in a transition
period, but it cannot accept the delay of almost thirteen years to be
justifiable, especially when such a fundamental right as freedom of
peaceful assembly is at stake. The Court concludes that the
interference with the applicant's right to freedom of peaceful
assembly was not prescribed by law.
- Having
reached this conclusion, the Court does not need to verify whether
other two requirements (legitimate aim and necessity of the
interference) set forth in Article 11 § 2 have been complied
with.
- Accordingly,
there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In
particular, he submitted that, as a result of the unlawful
interference, his reputation as a political activist was seriously
damaged. The imposition of a fine was degrading in the eyes of his
party colleagues, as well as his family and those citizens who
supported his party. The applicant made no claim in respect of
pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested his claim. Referring to the judgment in the case
of Ezelin v. France (judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no.
202, §§ 55-57), they submitted that the finding of a
violation would in itself constitute sufficient compensation. In any
event, the amount claimed was excessive.
- The
Court considers that the finding of a violation of the Convention
constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any
non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
11 of the Convention;
- Holds that the finding of a violation
constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any
non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President
