I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in AVETISYAN v. ARMENIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2025-08-28
- Communication date: 2019-03-07
- Application number(s): 39087/15
- Country: ARM
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 13
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Access to court) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.745009
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Volodya Avetisyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1963 and is detained in Ptghunk.
He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Revazyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
According to the order of the Minister of Justice of 28 February 2012, Nubarashen remand prison had the capacity to house up to 820 inmates.
According to the prison’s letter dated 25 November 2014, as of 30 April 2014 there were 962 inmates in the prison, while as of 30 October 2014 their number increased to 1040.
The applicant was detained in the prison from 23 September 2013 to 11 March 2015.
Between 23 September 2013 and 17 July 2014 the applicant was detained in cell no.
013.
Starting from 18 July 2014 he was detained in cell no.
007.
The surface area of those cells, in the applicant’s submission, was approximately 15-20 sq.
m, including the sanitary facilities within the cells.
In the applicant’s submission, the number of inmates in both cells varied, in various periods, between 3 and 8 inmates.
According to the prison’s letter of 18 November 2014, the number of inmates in the applicant’s cells was as follows: 8 inmates on 27 October 2013; 8 inmates on 27 December 2013; 8 inmates on 27 February 2014; 6 inmates on 27 April 2014; 5 inmates on 27 June 2014; 8 inmates on 27 August 2014; and 3 inmates on 27 October 2014.
As regards other conditions of his detention, the applicant submits that there was no central ventilation system in the prison.
Since there was no heating system, the cells were heated by the inmates using electric heaters.
A foul smell was constantly present in the prison.
The applicant spent the whole period of his detention in the cells, except for a one-hour daily outdoor walk.
Some of the inmates smoked cigarettes in the applicant’s cells.
Cockroaches and other insects were often observed in the living areas of the cells, but the prison administration did nothing to prevent their presence.
On 22 January 2015 the applicant applied to the Shengavit District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) with a civil claim against the penitentiary service and the prison, seeking to obtain acknowledgement of a breach of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention due to the conditions of his detention, and to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
On the same date the District Court declared the applicant’s civil claim inadmissible on the grounds that such claim was not within the competence of a court of general jurisdiction, but rather within the competence of the Administrative Court, due to its public law nature.
The applicant appealed against that decision.
On 2 March 2015 the Civil Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision, reasoning that the applicant’s claim raised criminal law matters, which were within the scope of courts of general jurisdiction.
On 29 April 2015 the District Court again declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible, reasoning that the applicant’s claim was not of a criminal law nature.
The applicant appealed against that decision.
On 6 July 2015 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the contested decision, but decided to supplement its reasoning.
The Civil Court of Appeal held that the applicant’s claim was within the competence of courts of general jurisdiction, namely the District Court, but such claim was of a criminal law nature and could not be examined in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
The applicant filed an appeal on points of law.
On 26 August 2015 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the conditions of his detention in Nubarashen remand prison.
The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 3.
Judgment
FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF KIRYEYEV AND LIMAN v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 56234/16 and 27010/24)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 August 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kiryeyev and Liman v. Ukraine,
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 3 July 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine 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 Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. THE LAW
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 5. The applicants complained of the denial of access to higher courts. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 6. The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights or obligations brought before a court or tribunal. That right of access is not absolute and it is subject to limitations, which, however, must not restrict or reduce a person’s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14 June 2007; Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v. Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017). Article 6 of the Convention does not compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation. However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, for instance in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their civil rights and obligations. Furthermore, it is not for this Court to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. On the other hand, the risk of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State, and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see, among other authorities, Gavrilov v. Ukraine, no. 11691/06, §§ 23-25, 16 February 2017, with further references). 7. In the leading cases of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001‐VI), and Mushta v. Ukraine (no. 8863/06, §§ 40-47, 18 November 2010), the Court already found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case. 8. 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 limitations in question impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to higher courts. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 10. In application no. 56234/16, the applicant also complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about his dismissal and the courts’ reasoning related to his challenge of that measure, including when rejecting his appeals. 11. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 7-9 above, the Court considers that it has already addressed the main legal issue raised by the case and that there is no need to pursue the examination of the aforementioned complaints (see, for a similar approach, Lorenzo Bragado and Others v. Spain, no. 53193/21 and 5 others, § 150, 22 June 2023). 12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Gavrilov, cited above, § 36), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the applicant in application no. 27010/24. As concerns the applicant in application no. 56234/16, the Court makes no award since he did not submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in application no. 27010/24, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 August 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(denial of access to higher courts)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Specific irregularity complained of
Case-law
Facts and relevant information
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
56234/16
20/09/2016
Rodion Volodymyrovych KIRYEYEV
1980
Vak Volodymyr Ivanovych
Yagotyn
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006;
Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
The present case mainly concerns the applicant’s lack of access to a higher court in relation to his dismissal from the post of a judge pursuant to the President’s Decree of 18/01/2016. The applicant challenged his dismissal before the courts, but on 02/03/2016 the High Administrative Court (“HAC”) dismissed his claim as unsubstantiated finding that the President had lawfully exercised his relevant powers. On 04/04/2016 the Supreme Court (“SC”) rejected the applicant’s appeal of 18/03/2016 against the HAC’s judgment of 02/03/2016 as lodged out of time and refused his request for an extension of the statutory ten-day time-limit, in which he claimed that he had received the full text of the contested judgment only on 12/03/2016. The SC noted that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing of 02/03/2016 during which the introductory and operative parts of the contested judgment had been pronounced and that the time-limit in question had started to run on that date. -
-
27010/24
11/09/2024
Nadiya Sergiyivna LIMAN
1962
Nykytyuk Oleksandr Ivanovych
Vinnytsa
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006; Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
On 16/01/2024 a local court found that the applicant had violated customs rules and had to be held liable. According to the Unified State Registry of the Courts Decisions, the decision of 16/01/2024 was published on 12/04/2024. The applicant appealed on 24/04/24 arguing that she had only obtained a copy of the above decision on 16/04/2024. By a final decision of 10/07/2024, the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as lodged out of time as well as her request for an extension of the applicable ten-day time limit, reasoning that the applicant’s representative was present at the hearing of 16/01/2024. 1,500
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KIRYEYEV AND LIMAN v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 56234/16 and 27010/24)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 August 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kiryeyev and Liman v. Ukraine,
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 3 July 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine 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 Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. THE LAW
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 5. The applicants complained of the denial of access to higher courts. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 6. The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights or obligations brought before a court or tribunal. That right of access is not absolute and it is subject to limitations, which, however, must not restrict or reduce a person’s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14 June 2007; Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v. Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017). Article 6 of the Convention does not compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation. However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, for instance in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their civil rights and obligations. Furthermore, it is not for this Court to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. On the other hand, the risk of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State, and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see, among other authorities, Gavrilov v. Ukraine, no. 11691/06, §§ 23-25, 16 February 2017, with further references). 7. In the leading cases of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001‐VI), and Mushta v. Ukraine (no. 8863/06, §§ 40-47, 18 November 2010), the Court already found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case. 8. 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 limitations in question impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to higher courts. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 10. In application no. 56234/16, the applicant also complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about his dismissal and the courts’ reasoning related to his challenge of that measure, including when rejecting his appeals. 11. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 7-9 above, the Court considers that it has already addressed the main legal issue raised by the case and that there is no need to pursue the examination of the aforementioned complaints (see, for a similar approach, Lorenzo Bragado and Others v. Spain, no. 53193/21 and 5 others, § 150, 22 June 2023). 12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Gavrilov, cited above, § 36), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the applicant in application no. 27010/24. As concerns the applicant in application no. 56234/16, the Court makes no award since he did not submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in application no. 27010/24, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 August 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(denial of access to higher courts)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Specific irregularity complained of
Case-law
Facts and relevant information
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
56234/16
20/09/2016
Rodion Volodymyrovych KIRYEYEV
1980
Vak Volodymyr Ivanovych
Yagotyn
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006;
Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
The present case mainly concerns the applicant’s lack of access to a higher court in relation to his dismissal from the post of a judge pursuant to the President’s Decree of 18/01/2016. The applicant challenged his dismissal before the courts, but on 02/03/2016 the High Administrative Court (“HAC”) dismissed his claim as unsubstantiated finding that the President had lawfully exercised his relevant powers. On 04/04/2016 the Supreme Court (“SC”) rejected the applicant’s appeal of 18/03/2016 against the HAC’s judgment of 02/03/2016 as lodged out of time and refused his request for an extension of the statutory ten-day time-limit, in which he claimed that he had received the full text of the contested judgment only on 12/03/2016. The SC noted that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing of 02/03/2016 during which the introductory and operative parts of the contested judgment had been pronounced and that the time-limit in question had started to run on that date. -
-
27010/24
11/09/2024
Nadiya Sergiyivna LIMAN
1962
Nykytyuk Oleksandr Ivanovych
Vinnytsa
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006; Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
On 16/01/2024 a local court found that the applicant had violated customs rules and had to be held liable. According to the Unified State Registry of the Courts Decisions, the decision of 16/01/2024 was published on 12/04/2024. The applicant appealed on 24/04/24 arguing that she had only obtained a copy of the above decision on 16/04/2024. By a final decision of 10/07/2024, the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as lodged out of time as well as her request for an extension of the applicable ten-day time limit, reasoning that the applicant’s representative was present at the hearing of 16/01/2024. 1,500
250
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Specific irregularity complained of
Case-law
Facts and relevant information
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
56234/16
20/09/2016
Rodion Volodymyrovych KIRYEYEV
1980
Vak Volodymyr Ivanovych
Yagotyn
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006;
Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
The present case mainly concerns the applicant’s lack of access to a higher court in relation to his dismissal from the post of a judge pursuant to the President’s Decree of 18/01/2016. The applicant challenged his dismissal before the courts, but on 02/03/2016 the High Administrative Court (“HAC”) dismissed his claim as unsubstantiated finding that the President had lawfully exercised his relevant powers. On 04/04/2016 the Supreme Court (“SC”) rejected the applicant’s appeal of 18/03/2016 against the HAC’s judgment of 02/03/2016 as lodged out of time and refused his request for an extension of the statutory ten-day time-limit, in which he claimed that he had received the full text of the contested judgment only on 12/03/2016. The SC noted that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing of 02/03/2016 during which the introductory and operative parts of the contested judgment had been pronounced and that the time-limit in question had started to run on that date. -
-
27010/24
11/09/2024
Nadiya Sergiyivna LIMAN
1962
Nykytyuk Oleksandr Ivanovych
Vinnytsa
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006; Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
On 16/01/2024 a local court found that the applicant had violated customs rules and had to be held liable. According to the Unified State Registry of the Courts Decisions, the decision of 16/01/2024 was published on 12/04/2024. The applicant appealed on 24/04/24 arguing that she had only obtained a copy of the above decision on 16/04/2024. By a final decision of 10/07/2024, the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as lodged out of time as well as her request for an extension of the applicable ten-day time limit, reasoning that the applicant’s representative was present at the hearing of 16/01/2024. 1,500
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.