Armenian Government Ordered to Pay 1500 Euros to Levon Barseghyan for Non-Material Damages

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on September 21 against Armenia, stating that the state violated the right to freedom of assembly and association of Levon Barseghyan, the founder and head of the Journalists' "Asparez" Club. The Armenian government is required to pay Levon Barseghyan the equivalent of 1500 euros in national currency as compensation for non-material damages.

It should be noted that the ECHR had previously ruled against Armenia in a case involving the "Dareskizb" LLC (the newspaper "Armenian Times"), obliging the company to pay the equivalent of 9000 euros in compensation. Both cases are related to the same events. Specifically, after the presidential elections on February 19, 2008, supporters of Levon Ter-Petrosyan began round-the-clock protests in Freedom Square. Police forces dispersed the gatherings, and a state of emergency was declared in Yerevan on March 1.

On March 2, 2008, around 12:30 PM, Levon Barseghyan arrived at the central Theater Square in Gyumri, intending to participate in a protest. However, his entry was denied by police officers. Barseghyan did not comply with their orders and was taken to the police station. An administrative case was launched against Barseghyan on the grounds of disobeying the lawful orders of police officers. An administrative violation report was drawn up. Barseghyan was questioned and later released.

The police filed a lawsuit demanding Levon Barseghyan be held administratively liable. Barseghyan, in turn, filed a counterclaim against the police. He argued that the police failed to prove that he called on others to hold a rally, maintaining that he did not intend to organize a protest. Furthermore, inviting people was not prohibited, hence he could not be punished under the law. Moreover, no evidence was presented that more than 100 people gathered near or around the Theater Square at that time, making the assertion that he called on others to gather without prior notice unfounded, as the law did not require prior notification if fewer than 100 people were participating in the assembly.

Consequently, the police's orders addressed to him could not be considered legal. On June 10, 2008, the Administrative Court ruled in favor of the police's lawsuit and rejected Levon Barseghyan's counterclaim, imposing an administrative fine of 50,000 Armenian drams on him.

In both the case of "Dareskizb" LLC and this case, the government's representative claimed that Armenia had diverged from its obligations under Article 11 in accordance with Article 15 of the Convention (derogations in times of emergency), therefore Barseghyan's application should be rejected. The government acknowledged that although the state of emergency proclaimed by the president pertained only to Yerevan, there was also a state of emergency in Gyumri, the country's second-largest city. Hence, a diversion from the obligations was necessary there as well due to the risk of the events in Yerevan being repeated in Gyumri.

The ECHR noted that the state of emergency declared by the President of Armenia on March 1, 2008, and the corresponding derogation applied solely to Yerevan, while the circumstances of this case occurred in Gyumri, where the aforementioned measures were not applied. According to the established case law of the Court, Article 15 of the Convention allows for derogations from obligations under the Convention only to the extent strictly necessary in times of emergency.

The Court pointed out that the interference should not be viewed merely as a prohibition, either legally or de facto, but may consist of various other measures taken by the authorities. The term “restrictions” in the second part of Article 11 of the Convention on freedom of assembly includes not only measures taken prior to, but also those during the assembly, such as preemptive prohibitions, dispersals of assemblies, or arrests of participants, as well as sanctions imposed afterward for participation in an assembly.

The parties in the case did not dispute the existence of interference. The ECHR also noted that the police obstructed Levon Barseghyan from holding a political protest in the center of Gyumri. When he did not comply, he was arrested, and later punished for those actions. Hence, the Court finds that there was an interference with Barseghyan's right to peaceful assembly.

The Court reiterated its previous positions that the right to freedom of assembly, which is fundamental to a democratic society, is subject to a number of exceptions that must be narrowly interpreted, and the necessity of any restrictions must be convincingly established. When examining whether limitations on rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention can be considered “necessary in a democratic society,” states have a certain, but not unlimited, margin of appreciation.

The Court also noted that there is no evidence suggesting that Barseghyan had violent intentions or incited others to commit violent acts or similar condemnable actions. Thus, the Court finds that the authorities, including domestic courts, did not provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the interference with Levon Barseghyan's right to freedom of assembly, which, under such circumstances, cannot be said to have been necessary in a democratic society. Accordingly, a violation of Article 11 of the Convention has occurred.