Background
Yeghia Nersesyan participated in a March 2014 protest against construction of a hydroelectric power plant. A large crowd blocked the Ashtarak-Aparan inter-regional highway. Police intervened and negotiations resulted in the road reopening, after which Nersesyan returned to Yerevan.
Several hours after the demonstration ended, police arrested Nersesyan for allegedly failing to comply with orders to reopen the road. Domestic administrative proceedings resulted in a 50,000 Armenian dram fine. The Administrative Court described him as one of four “more active” protesters, though it found his later arrest unnecessary under domestic law; the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Armenia breached Article 11. Although the police had a legitimate reason to restore traffic and Nersesyan’s failure to comply with a lawful order was relevant, those facts alone did not establish that his arrest and fine were necessary in a democratic society.
The domestic courts did not identify specific conduct by Nersesyan beyond his participation in the collective highway blockade, explain what made him “more active,” or assess how any such conduct aggravated the obstruction. Their reliance on his not being a member of the local community affected by the project was incompatible with Article 11, which protects everyone’s right to participate in an assembly. The Court awarded him €2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €1,000 for costs and expenses.
Key Takeaways
- A lawful police order to end a road blockade does not by itself justify sanctions against an assembly participant.
- Courts must identify the individual participant’s conduct and assess whether the interference with assembly rights was necessary and proportionate.
- Article 11 protects participation in demonstrations regardless of whether the participant lives in, or belongs to, the community affected by the protest.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that traffic disruption may justify police intervention, but it does not eliminate the need for an individualized proportionality assessment before arresting or fining protesters. Labels such as “more active participant” cannot substitute for findings of concrete conduct.
It also confirms that Article 11’s protection is not limited to people with a local or personal connection to the issue being protested.