On 17 September 2026 a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in CASE OF MARGARYAN v. ARMENIA (application no. 54266/17).
What this record does not establish →
On 17 September 2026 a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in a case it titles “CASE OF MARGARYAN v. ARMENIA”, brought against Armenia under application no. 54266/17.
The Court recorded a violation of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention.
The Court states its conclusion as: “Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)”
The wording in quotation marks above is the Court's own conclusion, reproduced so that the finding can be checked against the record. It is not this service's summary of the judgment.
This record establishes that the Court delivered this judgment on 17 September 2026 and what it recorded as its findings. It does not establish anything about the underlying events beyond what the Court found, it does not report what either party said, and it does not state what follows for Armenia or for anyone else. A Chamber judgment may be referred to the Grand Chamber and is not necessarily the end of the case.
Times
These are different things and are not interchangeable.
- Event occurred
- 17 September 2026, 00:00 UTC (as recorded by the source)
- Published here
- 22 September 2026, 20:28 UTC
Evidence
- Record identifier
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0917JUD005426617- Retrieved
- 22 September 2026, 20:28 UTC
- Snapshot checksum
99d540791e6a2cdd7b22847d7aa29ea94ea5386a42476e9dc3c3977f2fe40f37
Where each figure above comes from (8 values)
Revision history
-
22 September 2026, 20:28 UTC — First publication
Assembled from the source record listed under evidence.
What this record does not establish
Chamber and Grand Chamber judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, in English. Committee judgments are not reported: they apply well-established case-law to repetitive applications and are roughly two thirds of the Court's output by volume, so excluding them is a large omission and is stated here rather than left to be discovered. Decisions on admissibility, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries are not reported either. Where the Court found a violation on one limb of an article and none on another, that is reported as appearing in both findings; neither half is ever stated without the other. Case names are reproduced as the Court publishes them, including where they name an applicant and where the Court has anonymised one. This service makes no separate anonymisation decision. A judgment establishes what the Court decided on a date. It does not establish anything about the underlying events beyond the Court's own findings, it does not report what either party argued, and a Chamber judgment may still be referred to the Grand Chamber.
If something here is wrong, write to
[email protected]
quoting the record identifier above. Corrections are recorded on this page,
not made silently.