EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

greater non-pecuniary damage. The Convention case-law required that compensation for non- pecuniary damage be awarded in such cases. On 28 April 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan dismissed the claim for non-pecuniary damage on the ground that that type of damage was not envisaged under Article 17 of the Civil Code. The District Court awarded the claim for pecuniary damage in part, finding, inter alia , that, pursuant to Article 66 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the first applicant – as an acquitted person – was entitled to claim pecuniary compensation for unlawful arrest, detention, indictment and conviction, and awarding him AMD 6,250,000 for lost income for the period between 11 October 1998 and 17 April 2004. The second applicant was awarded AMD 1,500,000 for travel expenses, postage for parcels, and legal costs. On 12 May 2005 the first applicant lodged an appeal.On 31 August 2005 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the District Court. On 16 September 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. On 18 November 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal. The applicant complained about the dismissal of his claim for non-pecuniary damages in respect of his ill-treatment, unlawful arrest and detention, and unfair conviction.

Questions: 1. Is the application admissible? If not, on which grounds? 2. Was there an “interference” with the right of the applicants? 3. If yes, was the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? 4. What would be your legal advice to the applicant? 5. How would you decide the case if you were a judge on the Court?

Independence Day On 24 August 2011, as part of the Independence Day festivities, there was a wreath-laying ceremony at a monument to Taras Shevchenko, a famous Ukrainian poet and public figure, with the participation of the then President of Ukraine Mr Yanukovych. The applicant, as a member of the opposition party Batkivshchyna, took part in a public gathering organised by it on the occasion of Independence Day. According to her, the beginning of the meeting was delayed because of the aforementioned wreath-laying ceremony. After the ceremony the applicant approached the wreath laid by Mr Yanukovych and detached part of the ribbon bearing the words “the President of Ukraine V. F. Yanukovych” without damaging the wreath itself. This was meant to express her opinion that Mr Yanukovych could not be called the President of Ukraine for a number of reasons. The case file contains several copies of photos of the applicant in the aforementioned setting. In four of them she is seen near the wreath detaching the ribbon from it in a careful and concentrated manner, without changing the position of the wreath. In another photo the applicant holds the already detached ribbon in front of her and seems to be either laughing or saying something. There are many people next to her. In the last photo the applicant seems to be trying to tear the ribbon apart. Her face expresses either effort or contempt. The applicant’s action was video recorded by one of the police officers in charge of maintaining public order. The aforementioned photos may also have been taken by the police.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

119