FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KIVIRYAN v. ARMENIA
(Application no. 1593/16)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
30 April 2026
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kiviryan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 1593/16) 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”) on 20 December 2015 by an Armenian national, Mr Argishti Kiviryan (“the applicant”), who was born in 1977, lives in Yerevan and was represented by Ms L. Sahakyan and Mr Y. Varosyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 5 § 1 and Article 11 of the Convention to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, and subsequently by Mr K. Andreasyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
the withdrawal of Mr Vahe Grigoryan, the judge elected in respect of Armenia, from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court);
Having deliberated in private on 2 April 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns alleged restrictions on the applicant’s rights to liberty and freedom of assembly. He relied on Article 5 § 1 and Article 11 of the Convention. 2. Following a statement by the President of Armenia that the country would be joining the Eurasian Customs Union, on 4 September 2013 the applicant participated in a protest held on the pavement opposite the President’s Office, which was separated from it by six lanes of traffic. The demonstrators later moved in front of the building’s entrance gates, prompting the police to order them back to the opposite pavement and to stop traffic to facilitate their return. However, when the police attempted to move the demonstrators back to the opposite pavement, the applicant and others sat on the road in protest and refused to clear it despite police orders to do so. The police subsequently arrested most of the participants, but not the applicant. 3. Later the same day the applicant went to Arabkir police station, where many people had gathered in support of the arrested demonstrators. He was arrested there for his earlier failure to comply with police orders – an administrative offence under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the Code”). According to later findings of the domestic courts, the applicant’s arrest was justified under Articles 258 and 259 of the Code. Those provisions permitted, respectively, an individual to be deprived of his or her liberty for up to one hour in order to be taken to a police station and to be placed under administrative arrest for up to three hours – both, inter alia, for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record if one could not be prepared at the place where the offence had been detected (see Ishkhanyan v. Armenia, no. 5297/16, §§ 59‑60, 13 February 2025). The applicant was released after all administrative formalities had been completed. 4. The police applied to the Administrative Court, seeking to have an administrative fine imposed on the applicant under Article 182 of the Code. The applicant lodged a counterclaim against the police, complaining about the dispersal of the demonstration and his arrest. 5. The Administrative Court found that, notwithstanding the police’s lawful orders, the applicant had failed to vacate the area near the President’s Office and had continued obstructing the road by sitting on it, thereby breaching public order and committing an offence under Article 182. He was fined 50,000 Armenian drams (about 100 euros at the material time). The police order for the demonstrators to move was considered lawful under the Freedom of Assembly Act, as the protest’s proximity to the President’s Office could have disrupted its normal functioning and impeded access to the building. The police had sought not to ban the protest but to ensure that it did not interfere with the operations of the President’s Office. The applicant’s counterclaim was dismissed as he had failed to balance respect for public order with his right to freedom of assembly. Owing to the chaotic circumstances and limited police presence at the relevant time, the court accepted that it had been impossible to arrest him or draw up an administrative offence record at the scene, making his later arrest near the police station lawful under Articles 258 and 259 of the Code. 6. That judgment was upheld on appeal and the decision of the Court of Cassation was served on the applicant on 20 June 2015.

Outcome for Article 11: violation