FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SELIMYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
(Applications nos. 2991/16 and 2 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
16 April 2026
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Selimyan and Others v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Andreas Zünd, President,
 Diana Sârcu,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the complaints under Article 5 § 1 concerning the lawfulness of the applicants’ arrest. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the unlawful deprivation of liberty. THE LAW        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention
6. The applicants complained of the unlawful deprivation of liberty. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 7. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 of the Convention requires that any deprivation of liberty be “lawful”, which includes the condition that it must be effected “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 74, 22 October 2018). Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness. The notion of “arbitrariness” under Article 5 § 1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention (see Ishkhanyan v. Armenia, no. 5297/16, § 154, 13 February 2025, with further references). The Court further reiterates that the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention requires that an arrest in the context of criminal proceedings must be based on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (ibid., § 155, with further references). 8. In the leading case of Ishkhanyan (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (§§ 160-62). 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, including the Government’s objections related to the admissibility of the case, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court dismisses the Government’s objections and considers that in the instant case the applicants’ arrest was not based on a reasonable suspicion of them having committed an offence (compare Ishkhanyan, cited above, §§ 147-62). Having reached that conclusion, the Court does not find it necessary to address the remainder of the applicants’ complaints concerning the lawfulness of their police custody. 10. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 5: violation