KHAGHAGHUTYAN YERKKHOSUTYUN v. ARMENIA - 5497/17 (Art 10 - Freedom to receive and impart information : Preliminary objection dismissed : Fifth Section) [2025] ECHR 269 (04 December 2025)

KHAGHAGHUTYAN YERKKHOSUTYUN v. ARMENIA - 5497/17 (Art 10 - Freedom to receive and impart information : Preliminary objection dismissed : Fifth Section) [2025] ECHR 269 (04 December 2025)

The refusal to provide the requested information constituted an interference with Article 10 rights. While the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim (national security), the domestic courts failed to conduct any proportionality analysis or provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference. The blanket refusal without individualized assessment or explanation did not meet the requirements of necessity in a democratic society. Therefore, there was a violation of Article 10.

Citation
[2025] ECHR 269
Parties
Applicant NGO: Khaghaghutyan Yerkkhosutyun (Peace Dialogue); Respondent State: Republic of Armenia
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
04 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 found; application admissible; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Access to Information, State Secrets, Proportionality, Judicial Review
Human Rights Administrative Law National Security Freedom of Expression Access to Information State Secrets Proportionality Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khaghaghutyan Yerkkhosutyun (Peace Dialogue)

Applicant NGO

Republic of Armenia

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to provide information on fatalities in the armed forces violated Article 10 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to provide the requested information constituted an interference with Article 10 rights. While the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim (national security), the domestic courts failed to conduct any proportionality analysis or provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference. The blanket refusal without individualized assessment or explanation did not meet the requirements of necessity in a democratic society. Therefore, there was a violation of Article 10.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 found; application admissible; costs awarded.

Orders

  • The respondent State is to pay the applicant NGO EUR 2,287 for legal costs within three months, plus any tax chargeable, with interest for late payment.