FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF VANESYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
(Applications nos. 35710/22 and 2 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
26 February 2026
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vanesyan and Others v. Armenia,
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 5 February 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1.  The case originated in applications against Armenia 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 Armenian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre‑trial detention. In application no. 38190/23, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
THE LAW        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
7.  The Government argued that the applications were inadmissible for failure to exhaust the domestic remedies. Having examined the Government’s arguments and supporting evidence, the Court does not discern sufficient grounds to accept their objections, which must therefore be rejected (compare Arzumanyan v. Armenia, no. 25935/08, §§ 30-32, 11 January 2018; Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 72, 15 June 2021; and Avushyan v. Armenia [Committee], no. 34684/13, § 18, 31 January 2023).
8.  The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
9.  In the leading case of Muradkhanyan v. Armenia (no. 12895/06, 5 June 2012), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10.  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 length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
    REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  In application no. 38190/23, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
13.  The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Muradkhanyan, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,     Decides to join the applications;     Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention admissible and the remainder of application no. 38190/23 inadmissible;     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;     Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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;  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 26 February 2026, 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 5 § 3 of the Convention
(lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention and excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Court which issued detention order / examined appeal
Length of detention
Specific defects
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
   35710/22
12/07/2022
Samvel VANESYAN
1954
 
Alumyan Hayk
Yerevan
03/06/2020 to
23/01/2023
First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan
 
 Lori Regional Court
 
 Criminal Court of Appeal
2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
 
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand;
 
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
1,700
250
   8336/23
04/02/2023
Hovsep ASHKARIAN
1999
 
Simonyan Liparit
Yerevan
07/10/2020 to
13/10/2023
First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan
 
 Criminal Court of Appeal
3 year(s) and 7 day(s)
 
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand
1,900
250
   38190/23
07/10/2023
Samvel GRIGORYAN
2001
 
Simonyan Liparit
Yerevan
21/08/2021 to
21/08/2025
Syunik Regional Court
 
First Instance Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan
 
 Criminal Court of Appeal
4 year(s) and 1 day(s)
 
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;
 
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand
2,500
250
 
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.