FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF YEGNUKIAN v. ARMENIA
 (Application no. 69596/17)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
10 December 2020
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yegnukian v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Jolien Schukking, President,
 Armen Harutyunyan,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 August 2017. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr T. Hayrapetyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. 3. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The case was communicated under the case name of Karo Yeghnukyan. By a letter dated 2 July 2020, the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the applicant’s real name was Garo Yegnukian. On 7 July 2020 the Court informed the parties that it would process the application under the case name of Garo Yegnukian. 6. The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. THE LAW
THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
9. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII). 10. In the leading case of Grigoryan v. Armenia (no. 3627/06, 10 July 2012), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, 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 considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 12.

Outcome for Article 6: violation