CASE OF SAHAKYAN v. ARMENIA
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)
Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits
5. The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Yerevan. 6. On 30 August 2007 the applicant was arrested and later charged under Article 112 § 1 of the Criminal Code with intentional infliction of a grave injury. 7. On 1 September 2007 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan granted the investigator’s motion to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. 8. On 28 September 2007 the same court decided, upon the applicant’s motion, to release him on bail. 9. On 4 October 2007 the investigator decided to cancel bail and to detain the applicant on the basis of the decision of 1 September 2007. It appears that on the same day the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. 10. On 22 October 2007 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan decided, upon the applicant’s appeal, to quash the investigator’s decision and to release the applicant. The District Court stated that, in accordance with Article 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detention could be imposed only by a court and was the court’s prerogative. The investigator had therefore exceeded his authority and had incorrectly interpreted the law by imposing detention. The law required the investigator to apply to the court with a reasoned motion, if there were sufficient grounds to replace bail with detention. The District Court found that the applicant’s detention imposed on the basis of the decision of 4 October 2007 had violated his rights guaranteed under, inter alia, Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention and Article 16 of the Constitution. 11. On 13 December 2007 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan acquitted the applicant. 12. On 28 March 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. 13. On 21 April 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance, seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in connection with the criminal proceedings against him, including his detention. The claim for pecuniary damage included alleged lost earnings, expenses related to food parcels received in detention and the transport costs of his relatives. The applicant estimated the non-pecuniary damage suffered by him at 15,400 euros (EUR). 14. On 25 September 2009 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to grant partially the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damages and award him 215,100 Armenian drams (AMD) (approximately EUR 380 at the material time). As regards the claim for non-pecuniary damages, the District Court decided to dismiss it, with reference to Article 17 of the Civil Code, on the ground that the Armenian law did not provide for this type of compensation. 15. On 26 October 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal. 16. On an unspecified date the Ministry of Finance also lodged an appeal, contesting the judgment in its part concerning the award of pecuniary damages. 17. On 4 December 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the applicant’s appeal and to grant that of the Ministry of Finance, reducing the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage to AMD 96,800 (approximately EUR 165 at the material time). As regards the claim for non-pecuniary damages, the Court of Appeal decided to terminate the proceedings on the ground that Armenian law did not provide for this type of compensation and therefore that claim could not be examined by the court. 18. On 14 December 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 19. On 1 July 2011 the Court of Cassation decided to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the decision of the Civil Court of Appeal.