ECtHR: Armenia Violates NGO’s Freedom of Assembly in Prohibiting Commemorative March

Courtroom in the ECtHR
Credit: Wikimedia Commons Adrian Grycuk

On March 31, 2015 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) released its judgment in Helsinki Committee of Armenia v. Armenia, concerning the State’s denial of a non-governmental human rights organization’s (NGO) application to hold an event dedicated to mourning the death of a murder investigation witness at the police station. See ECtHR, Helsinki Committee of Armenia v. Armenia, no. 59109/08, Judgment of 31 March 2015.

The Court held that the State violated Article 11 (the right to freedom of assembly and association) and Article 13 (the right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights by banning the organization from holding a march to commemorate the death and for failing to provide the organization with the opportunity to appeal the State’s decision of a ban. The Court took into consideration the time sensitive nature of the march in ruling that the right to an effective remedy was denied. [ECtHR Press Release]

Facts and Domestic Procedure

In March 2008, following post-election rallies and protests that resulted in violence and casualties, the President of Armenia banned all public assemblies for 20 days. [Human Rights Watch] On May 6, 2008, the Helsinki Committee of Armenia, an NGO, applied to hold a commemoration march on May 12, 2008, the one-year death anniversary of a murder investigation witness that had been held in police custody in Yerevan, the capital city of Armenia. The Mayor of Yerevan denied the application on May 8, the decision was posted to the organization on May 12, and the organization received the notification on May 13. When the NGO attempted to hold the march on May 12, the police prevented them from doing so. [ECtHR Press Release]

The Mayor of Yerevan used the Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations Act, which allows the authorities to ban the holding of a public event under certain circumstances, as a basis upon which to ban the NGO’s commemorative march. Under Armenia’s Code of Administrative Procedure, there are four types of applications that may be lodged with the Administrative Court: an application to challenge an administrative act with the aim of having it annulled, either in part or completely; an application to adopt a favorable administrative act; an application to perform or refrain from performing certain actions; and an application to recognize the existence or absence of a legal relationship.

Admissibility

With respect to admissibility, despite the State’s argument that the organization should have lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court using one of the above types of applications, the Court found that the Helsinki Committee of Armenia had satisfied the requirement of exhausting domestic remedies. Because the Mayor’s Office did not inform the organization about its decision to deny the application to hold the event until after the date of the event, the State in effect denied the organizers the opportunity to appeal the decision and prevented their access to an effective remedy. The Court also noted that because of the critical timing of the commemorative march – that is, the Helsinki Committee of Armenia specifically chose May 12 because it was the anniversary date of the witness’s death – pursuing an effective remedy depended on receiving a ruling before the event was to occur. Given that this was not the case, the organization was denied an effective domestic remedy. See Helsinki Committee of Armenia v. Armenia, 31 March 2015, paras. 29-38.

Article 11: Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. The Government of Armenia suggested that the right to freedom of assembly had not been interfered with because the organization had not yet received the Mayor’s denial letter and therefore was free to hold the march. See Helsinki Committee of Armenia v. Armenia, 31 March 2015, paras. 39-40.

The Court did not accept this reasoning based on the fact that not receiving the notification did not nullify the decision and that the police prevented the organizers from holding their march. See id. at paras. 41-42.

Given that the State did interfere with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, the Court went on to analyze whether or not this interference was warranted. The State may only interfere with such freedoms if three criteria are met: if the law prescribes an interference; if the interference pursues a legitimate aim; and if the interference is necessary to accomplish those aims in a democratic society.

The Court noted that the first two exceptions to the freedom of peaceful assembly and association were met, given that first, Armenian law prescribed the interference and second, this interference pursued a legitimate aim, which was to avoid public disorder. The Mayor denied the application to hold the march under the Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations Act because of national security and public order concerns.

However, the Court noted that denying the NGO’s application to hold this commemorative march was not necessary to avoid public disorder. The Court’s reasoning was based on the fact that the march was planned more than two months after the post-election clashes and one month after the President’s declaration of a state of emergency had expired, that the march participants were not tied to the post-election violence, and that there was no evidence that the march would be violent or disorderly, as the aim of the march was to raise public awareness with respect to the person who had died in State custody. As a result, the Court decided that the interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly was “not necessary in a democratic society.” See Helsinki Committee of Armenia v. Armenia, 31 March 2015, paras 43-53.

Other Cases Involving Article 11

In past cases, the Court has issued judgments regarding Article 11 violations by taking into consideration whether certain actions on the part of political parties jeopardize a State’s institutions or its right to protect those institutions. In such cases, the freedom of assembly and association might be subject to certain limitations. See ECtHR, Factsheet – Political Parties and Associations, June 2014.

In Yazar, Karatas, Aksoy and the People’s Labour Party (HEP) v. Turkey, the Court held that the State violated Article 11 when Turkey dissolved the People’s Labor Party on the basis that its activities could undermine the territorial integrity and unity of Turkey. The Court found that Turkey was unable to establish that the organization was aimed at undermining democracy and the State’s interference was thus not necessary. [ECtHR Press Release] See ECtHR, Case of Yazar and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 9 July 2002, paras. 46-61.

In Vona v. Hungary, when the State dissolved an organization that had held demonstrations in favor of racial division and had intimidated the Roma population, the Court held that States are entitled to take preventive measures to protect democracy if there is a sufficiently imminent threat to the rights of others that undermines the fundamental values of a democratic society.See ECtHR, Case of Vona v. Hungary, no. 35943/10, Judgment of 09 July 2013, paras. 58-72.

Buy zovirax online
Buy nexium online

Article 13: Right to an Effective Remedy

Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to an effective remedy. Armenia violated this right when it failed to provide the organization with access to an effective domestic remedy. Although the State had in place an established procedure allowing for an appeals process before an Administrative Court, the State’s delayed notice of denial did not give the organizers adequate time to appeal the ban through this mechanism. The Court thus concluded that the organization was denied a remedy that would have provided sufficient and adequate redress and, given that other effective remedies did not exist, the organization was denied an effective remedy in violation of Article 13. See ECtHR, Helsinki Committee of Armenia v. Armenia, 31 March 2015, paras. 58-61.

Additional Information

For more information about the European Court of Human Rights and the European human rights system, visit IJRC’s Online Resource Hub.