DOCSLIB.ORG

CHIRAGOV and OTHERS V. ARMENIA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CHIRAGOV and OTHERS V. ARMENIA GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA (Application no. 13216/05) JUDGMENT (Merits) STRASBOURG 16 June 2015 This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT (MERITS) 1 In the case of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Dean Spielmann, President, Josep Casadevall, Guido Raimondi, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro, Ineta Ziemele, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Alvina Gyulumyan, Khanlar Hajiyev, George Nicolaou, Luis López Guerra, Ganna Yudkivska, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Ksenija Turković, Egidijus Kūris, Robert Spano, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 22-23 January 2014 and 22 January 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 13216/05) 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 six Azerbaijani nationals, Mr Elkhan Chiragov, Mr Adishirin Chiragov, Mr Ramiz Gebrayilov, Mr Akif Hasanof, Mr Fekhreddin Pashayev and Mr Qaraca Gabrayilov (“the applicants”), on 6 April 2005. The sixth applicant died in June 2005. The application was pursued on his behalf by his son, Mr Sagatel Gabrayilov. 2. The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr M. Muller QC, Ms C. Vine, Ms M. Butler, Mr M. Ivers, Ms B. Poynor and Mr S. Swaroop, lawyers practising in London, as well as Mr K. Yıldız. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia before the Court. 2 CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT (MERITS) 3. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they were prevented from returning to the district of Lachin in territory occupied by the respondent Government, that they were thus unable to enjoy their property and homes located there and that they had not received any compensation for their losses. They submitted that this amounted to continuing violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of Article 8 of the Convention. Moreover, they alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that no effective remedy was available in respect of the above complaints. Finally, they claimed, with a view to all complaints set out above, that they were subjected to discrimination by virtue of ethnic origin and religious affiliation in violation of Article 14 of the Convention. 4. The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). The Azerbaijani Government made use of their right to intervene under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention. They were represented by their Agent, Mr. C. Asgarov. 5. On 9 March 2010 a Chamber of the Third Section, composed of judges Josep Casadevall, Elisabet Fura, Corneliu Bîrsan, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer and Luis López Guerra, and also of Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, neither of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72). 6. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. The President of the Court decided that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the present case and the case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (application no. 40167/06) should be assigned to the same composition of the Grand Chamber (Rules 24, 42 § 2 and 71). 7. A hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 15 September 2010 (Rule 59 § 3). 8. On 14 December 2011 the application was declared admissible by a Grand Chamber consisting of judges Nicolas Bratza, Jean-Paul Costa, Christos Rozakis, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Nina Vajić, Corneliu Bîrsan, Peer Lorenzen, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Elisabet Fura, Alvina Gyulumyan, Khanlar Hajiyev, Egbert Myjer, Sverre Erik Jebens, Giorgio Malinverni, George Nicolaou and Luis López Guerra, and also of Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar. 9. The applicants and the respondent Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1) on the merits. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Azerbaijani Government. 10. A hearing on the merits took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 January 2014. CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT (MERITS) 3 There appeared before the Court: (a) for the respondent Government Mr G. KOSTANYAN, Agent, Mr G. ROBERTSON, QC, Counsel, Mr E. BABAYAN, Mr T. COLLIS, Advisers; (b) for the applicants Mr M. MULLER, QC, Mr M. IVERS, Mr S. SWAROOP, Ms M. BUTLER, Counsel, Ms C. VINE, Ms B. POYNOR, Ms S. KARAKAŞ, Ms A. EVANS, Advisers; (c) for the Azerbaijani Government Mr C. ASGAROV, Agent, Mr M.N. SHAW, QC, Mr G. LANSKY, Counsel, Mr O. GVALADZE, Mr H. TRETTER, Ms T. URDANETA WITTEK, Mr O. ISMAYILOV, Advisers. The applicants A. Hasanof and F. Pashayev were also present. The Court heard addresses by Mr Muller, Mr Swaroop, Mr Ivers, Ms Butler, Mr Robertson, Mr Shaw and Mr Lansky. 11. Following the hearing, the Court decided that the examination of the case did not require it to undertake a fact-finding mission or to conduct a hearing of witnesses. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A. Background 12. At the time of the demise of the USSR, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (“the NKAO”) was an autonomous province of the 4 CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT (MERITS) Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Azerbaijan SSR”). Situated within the territory of the Azerbaijan SSR, it covered 4,388 sq. km. There was at that time no common border between Nagorno-Karabakh (known as Artsakh by its Armenian name) and the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Armenian SSR”), which were separated by Azerbaijani territory, at the shortest distance by the district of Lachin, including a strip of land often referred to as the “Lachin corridor”, less than ten kilometres wide. 13. According to the USSR census of 1989, the NKAO had a population of 189,000, consisting of 77% ethnic Armenians and 22% ethnic Azeris, with Russian and Kurdish minorities. The district of Lachin had a different demographic, the great majority of its population of some 60,000 being Kurds and Azeris. Only 5-6% were Armenians. 14. In early 1988 demonstrations were held in Stepanakert, the regional capital of the NKAO, as well as in the Armenian capital of Yerevan, demanding the incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia. On 20 February the Soviet of the NKAO made a request to the Supreme Soviets of the Armenian SSR, the Azerbaijan SSR and the USSR that the NKAO be allowed to secede from Azerbaijan and join Armenia. The request was rejected by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on 23 March. In June it was also rejected by the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan whereas its counterpart in Armenia voted in favour of unification. 15. Throughout 1988 the demonstrations calling for unification continued. The district of Lachin was subjected to roadblocks and attacks. The clashes led to many casualties, and refugees, numbering hundreds of thousands on both sides, flowed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. As a consequence, on 12 January 1989 the USSR Government placed the NKAO under Moscow’s direct rule. However, on 28 November of that year, control of the province was returned to Azerbaijan. A few days later, on 1 December, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR and the Nagorno-Karabakh regional council adopted a joint resolution, “On the reunification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia”. As a result of this resolution a joint budget for the two entities was established in January 1990 and a decision to include Nagorno-Karabakh in the upcoming Armenian elections was taken in the spring of that year. 16. In early 1990, following an escalation of the conflict, Soviet troops arrived in Baku and Nagorno-Karabakh, and the latter province was placed under a state of emergency. Violent clashes between Armenians and Azeris continued, however, with the occasional intervention by Soviet forces. 17. On 30 August 1991 Azerbaijan declared independence from the Soviet Union. This was subsequently formalised by means of the adoption of the Constitutional Act on the State Independence of 18 October. On 2 September the Soviet of the NKAO announced the establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (hereinafter the “NKR”), consisting of the territory of the NKAO and the Shaumyan district of Azerbaijan, and CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT (MERITS) 5 declared that it was no longer under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. On 26 November the Azerbaijani parliament abolished the autonomy previously enjoyed by Nagorno-Karabakh. In a referendum organised in Nagorno- Karabakh on 10 December, 99.9% of those participating voted in favour of secession. However, the Azeri population boycotted the referendum. In the same month, the Soviet Union was dissolved and Soviet troops began to withdraw from the region. Military control of Nagorno-Karabakh was rapidly passing to the Karabakh Armenians. On 6 January 1992 the “NKR”, having regard to the results of the referendum, reaffirmed its independence from Azerbaijan. 18. In early 1992 the conflict gradually escalated into full-scale war. The ethnic Armenians conquered several Azeri villages, leading to at least several hundred deaths and the departure of the population. 19. The district of Lachin, in particular the town of Lachin, was attacked many times. The applicants claimed that the attacks were made by troops of both Nagorno-Karabakh and the Republic of Armenia.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    United Nations CCPR/SP/89 International Covenant on Distr.: General 7 May 2018 Civil and Political Rights Original: English Meeting of States parties Thirty-sixth meeting New York, 14 June 2018 Item 5 of the provisional agenda Election, in accordance with articles 28–34 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of nine members of the Human Rights Committee to replace those whose terms are due to expire on 31 December 2018 Election of nine members of the Human Rights Committee to replace those whose terms are due to expire on 31 December 2018 Note by the Secretary-General 1. In conformity with articles 28 to 32 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the thirty-sixth meeting of States parties to the Covenant is to be held at United Nations Headquarters on 14 June 2018 for the purpose of electing nine members of the Human Rights Committee from a list of persons nominated by States parties (sect. II), to replace those whose terms of office will expire on 31 December 2018 (sect. I). I. Members of the Committee whose terms will expire on 31 December 2018 Name of member Country of nationality Mr. Yadh Ben Achour Tunisia Ms. Sarah Cleveland United States of America Mr. Olivier de Frouville France Mr. Yuji Iwasawa Japan Ms. Ivana Jelić Montenegro Mr. Duncan Laki Muhumuza Uganda Ms. Photini Pazartzis Greece Mr. Mauro Politi Italy Ms. Margo Waterval Suriname GE.18-07172 (E) 220518 230518 CCPR/SP/89 II. Persons nominated by States parties 2. In accordance with article 30 (2) of the Covenant, the Secretary-General, in a note verbale dated 15 December 2017, invited the States parties to submit, in conformity with article 29 of the Covenant, their nominations for the election of nine members of the Committee by 9 April 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • THIRD SECTION CASE of BAYATYAN V. ARMENIA
    THIRD SECTION CASE OF BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 23459/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 October 2009 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Bayatyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Elisabet Fura, Corneliu Bîrsan, Boštjan M. Zupan čič, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer, Ann Power, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 23459/03) 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 Vahan Bayatyan (“the applicant”), on 22 July 2003. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr J. M. Burns, Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr R. Khachatryan, lawyers practising in Georgetown (Canada), Patterson (USA) and Yerevan respectively. 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. 3. The applicant alleged that his conviction for refusal to serve in the army had unlawfully interfered with his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 4. By a decision of 12 December 2006, the Chamber declared the application admissible under Article 9 of the Convention and the remainder inadmissible.
    [Show full text]
  • European Court of Human Rights
    GRAND CHAMBER DECISION Application no. 40167/06 Minas SARGSYAN against Azerbaijan The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 14 December 2011 as a Grand Chamber composed of: Nicolas Bratza, President, Jean-Paul Costa, Christos Rozakis, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Nina Vajić, Corneliu Bîrsan, Peer Lorenzen, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Elisabet Fura, Alvina Gyulumyan, Khanlar Hajiyev, Egbert Myjer, Sverre Erik Jebens, Giorgio Malinverni, George Nicolaou, Luis López Guerra, judges, and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2006, Having regard to the decision of 11 March 2010 by which the Chamber of the First Section to which the case had originally been assigned relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article 30 of the Convention), 2 SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN DECISION Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having regard to the comments submitted by the Armenian Government, Having regard to the oral submissions of the parties and the third party at the hearing on 15 September 2010, Having deliberated on 15, 16 and 22 September 2010 and on 14 December 2011 decides, on the last-mentioned date as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Minas Sargsyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1929 and died in 2009. His widow, Lena Sargsyan, born in 1936 and their children, Vladimir, Tsovinar and Nina Sargsyan, born in 1957, 1959, and 1966 respectively, have expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf. The applicant is represented before the Court by Ms N.
    [Show full text]
  • European Court of Human Rights
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA (Application no. 55707/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 February 2009 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Corneliu Bîrsan, Nina Vajić, Alvina Gyulumyan, Dean Spielmann, Davíd Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Ineta Ziemele, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 June 2008 and on 14 January 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 55707/00) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a “permanently resident non-citizen” (nepilsone) of Latvia who was previously a national of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Ms Natālija Andrejeva (“the applicant”), on 27 February 2000. 2. The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr V. Buzajevs, Member of Parliament. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Reine. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that by refusing to grant her a State pension in respect of her employment in the former Soviet Union prior to 1991 on the ground that she did not have Latvian citizenship, the national authorities had discriminated against her in the exercise of her pecuniary rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 GE.16-07071 (E) 170516 200516 Meeting of States Parties
    United Nations CCPR/SP/87 International Covenant on Distr.: General 4 May 2016 Civil and Political Rights Original: English Meeting of States parties Thirty-fifth meeting New York, 23 June 2016 Item 5 of the provisional agenda Election, in accordance with articles 28-34 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of nine members of the Human Rights Committee to replace those whose terms are due to expire on 31 December 2016 Election of nine members of the Human Rights Committee to replace those whose terms are due to expire on 31 December 2016 Note by the Secretary-General 1. In conformity with articles 28 to 32 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the thirty-fifth meeting of States parties to the Covenant is to be held at United Nations Headquarters on 23 June 2016 for the purpose of electing nine members of the Human Rights Committee from a list of persons nominated by States parties (sect. II), to replace those whose terms of office will expire on 31 December 2016 (sect. I). I. Members of the Committee whose terms will expire on 31 December 2016 Name of member Country of nationality Mr. Lazhari Bouzida Algeria Mr. Ahmed Amin Fathallaa Egypt Sir Nigel Rodleya United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Mr. Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Resciaa Costa Rica Mr. Fabián Omar Salviolia Argentina GE.16-07071 (E) 170516 200516 CCPR/SP/87 Name of member Country of nationality Mr. Dheerujlall Seetulsingh Mauritius Ms. Anja Seibert-Fohra Germany Mr. Yuval Shanya Israel Mr. Konstantine Vardzelashvili Georgia a Member eligible for re-election under the Committee’s rules of procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • CHIRAGOV and OTHERS V. ARMENIA
    GRAND CHAMBER DECISION Application no. 13216/05 Elkhan CHIRAGOV and Others against Armenia The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 14 December 2011 as a Grand Chamber composed of: Nicolas Bratza, President, Jean-Paul Costa, Christos Rozakis, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Nina Vaji ć, Corneliu Bîrsan, Peer Lorenzen, Boštjan M. Zupan čič, Elisabet Fura, Alvina Gyulumyan, Khanlar Hajiyev, Egbert Myjer, Sverre Erik Jebens, Giorgio Malinverni, George Nicolaou, Luis López Guerra, judges, and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2005, Having regard to the decision of 9 March 2010 by which the Chamber of the Third Section to which the case had originally been assigned 2 CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA DECISION relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article 30 of the Convention), Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having regard to the comments submitted by the Azerbaijani Government, Having regard to the oral submissions of the parties and of the third party at the hearing on 15 September 2010, Having deliberated on 15, 16 and 22 September 2010 and on 14 December 2011, decides, on the last-mentioned date, as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants Mr Elkhan Chiragov, Mr Adishirin Chiragov, Mr Ramiz Gebrayilov, Mr Akif Hasanof and Mr Fekhreddin Pashayev, are Azerbaijani nationals. They now live in Baku, except Mr Hasanof who lives in the town of Sumgait. The sixth applicant, Mr Qaraca Gabrayilov, was an Azerbaijani national who died in 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Final 10/07/2012
    THIRD SECTION CASE OF HAKOBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA (Application no. 34320/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 April 2012 FINAL 10/07/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. HAKOBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Corneliu Bîrsan, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer, Ineta Ziemele, Luis López Guerra, Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 March 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 34320/04) 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 three Armenian nationals, Mr Hakob Hakobyan (“the first applicant”), Mr Gor Martirosyan (“the second applicant”) and Mr Hamlet Petrosyan (“the third applicant), on 25 August 2004. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr M. Muller, Mr T. Otty, Mr K. Yildiz, Ms L. Claridge and Ms A. Stock, lawyers of the Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP) based in London, and Mr T. Ter-Yesayan and Ms N. Gasparyan, lawyers 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. 3. The applicants alleged, in particular, that their arrest and detention violated their rights guaranteed by Articles 5, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention, while the administrative proceedings against them had been conducted in violation of the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No.
    [Show full text]
  • BAYATYAN V. ARMENIA
    GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 23459/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 July 2011 This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Bayatyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Nina Vaji ć, Lech Garlicki, Alvina Gyulumyan, Dean Spielmann, Renate Jaeger, Sverre Erik Jebens, Päivi Hirvelä, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Ledi Bianku, Mihai Poalelungi, Nebojša Vu čini ć, Guido Raimondi, judges, and Vincent Berger, Jurisconsult, Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2010 and 1 June 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 23459/03) 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 Vahan Bayatyan (“the applicant”), on 22 July 2003. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr J.M. Burns, a lawyer practising in Georgetown (Canada), Mr A. Carbonneau, a lawyer practising in Patterson (USA), Mr R. Khachatryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan, and Mr P. Muzny, professor of law at the Universities of Savoy and Geneva. 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. 2 BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 3. The applicant alleged, inter alia , that his conviction for refusal to serve in the army had violated his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
    [Show full text]
  • BAYATYAN V. ARMENIA
    GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 23459/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 July 2011 BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Bayatyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Nina Vajić, Lech Garlicki, Alvina Gyulumyan, Dean Spielmann, Renate Jaeger, Sverre Erik Jebens, Päivi Hirvelä, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Ledi Bianku, Mihai Poalelungi, Nebojša Vučinić, Guido Raimondi, judges, and Vincent Berger, Jurisconsult, Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2010 and 1 June 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 23459/03) 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 Vahan Bayatyan (“the applicant”), on 22 July 2003. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr J.M. Burns, a lawyer practising in Georgetown (Canada), Mr A. Carbonneau, a lawyer practising in Patterson (United States of America), Mr R. Khachatryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan, and Mr P. Muzny, Professor of Law at the Universities of Savoy and Geneva. 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. 2 BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 3. The applicant alleged, inter alia, that his conviction for refusal to serve in the army had violated his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
    [Show full text]
  • THIRD SECTION CASE of TSATURYAN V. ARMENIA (Application No. 37821/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 January 2012
    THIRD SECTION CASE OF TSATURYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 37821/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 January 2012 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TSATURYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Tsaturyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Corneliu Bîrsan, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer, Ineta Ziemele, Luis López Guerra, Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 29 November 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 37821/03) 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 Ashot Tsaturyan (“the applicant”), on 28 November 2003. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr J.M. Burns, a lawyer practising in Georgetown (Canada), Mr A. Carbonneau, a lawyer practising in Patterson (USA), and Mr R. Khachatryan, 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. 3. On 6 September 2005 the President of the Third Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. 4. On 23 June 2011 the President of the Third Section decided to apply Article 29 § 1 of the Convention and to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
    [Show full text]
  • European Court of Human Rights Held, by a Majority, That There Had Been
    issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 094 (2011) 07.07.2011 Imprisonment of conscientious objector in Armenia for refusing to do military service violated his right to freedom of religion In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case Bayatyan v. Armenia (application no. 23459/03), which is final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been: A violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the conviction in 2003 of a conscientious objector - a Jehovah’s Witness - for his refusal to perform military service. He was imprisoned despite Armenia’s undertaking, when joining the Council of Europe on 25 January 2001, to introduce civilian service as an alternative to compulsory military service within three years and to pardon all conscientious objectors sentenced to imprisonment. Principal facts The applicant, Vahan Bayatyan, is an Armenian national, born in 1983. He is a Jehovah’s Witness. Declared fit for military service when he was 17 years’ old, Mr Bayatyan became eligible for the spring draft of 2001. On 1 April 2001 he wrote to the General Prosecutor of Armenia, the Military Commissioner of Armenia and the Human Rights Commission of the National Assembly stating that, as a Christian, he could not do military service, but that he was prepared to do alternative civilian service. Aged 18, he was summonsed to appear for military service on 15 May 2001, but failed to turn up. On 29 May 2001 the Commission for State and Legal Affairs of the National Assembly informed him that, since there was no law in Armenia on alternative service, he was obliged to serve in the army, because both the Armenian Constitution and the Military Liability Act required every fit man aged between 18 and 27 to do military service.
    [Show full text]
  • READING 13-E
    Strasbourg, 12 February 1999 Restricted <cdl\doc\1999\cdl-ju\13-e> CDL-JU (99) 13 Or. Fr EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) Seminar on “Electoral Disputes before the Constitutional Court” (Yerevan, 15-16 October 1998) S Y N O P S I S The European Commission for Democracy through Law organised, in co-operation with the Constitutional Court of Armenia, a seminar on “Electoral Disputes before the Constitutional Court” in Yerevan on 15-16 October 1998. This seminar brought together around 50 participants (members of Constitutional Courts, University professors, and policitians). The theme of electoral disputes was studied in a comparative manner. Emphasis was laid on procedural aspects, without at the same time neglecting questions of substance. A general report on electoral disputes in comparative law was presented by Mr Bernard Owen, of the Paris II-Assas University. The rest of the seminar was devoted to national reports and contributions, relating to both Western Europe as well to the new democracies. Interventions were made either by University professors - Mr Dominique Rousseau (France); Mr Etienne Grisel (Switzerland) - or by members or representatives of Constitutional Courts - Ms Margarita Zlatareva (Bulgaria); Mr Fayzulo Abduloev (Tadjikistan); Mr Karl-H. Zoll (Germany). Electoral disputes in Armenia were presented by two judges of the Constitutional Court, Ms Alvina Gyulumyan and Mr Felix Tokhian, member of the Court, who placed it within the framework of constitutional reform in Armenia. Mr Egidijus Bieli ūnas, member of the European Court of Human Rights, gave a report on the case law of the organs of the European Court of Human Rights in the field of electoral disputes.
    [Show full text]