6.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1961 respectively and live in Yerevan. 7.  The applicants and a third person jointly owned a flat which measured 55.7 sq. m. and was situated at 25 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. 8.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of the Kentron District of Yerevan to be taken for State needs for town-planning purposes, having a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones. A special body, the Yerevan Construction and Investment Project Implementation Agency (hereafter, the Agency) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects. 9.  On 7 September 2004 the applicants’ flat was valued upon the request of the Agency by a valuation organisation. The market value of the flat was estimated at 20,080 United States dollars (USD). 10.  In January 2005 the Agency informed the applicants that their flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at USD 20,080. An additional sum of USD 14,734.70 was offered to the applicants as a financial incentive if they signed an agreement within five days. 11.  The applicants did not accept the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered. 12.  On 20 January 2005 the Agency lodged a claim against the applicant Sedrak Baghdasaryan, seeking to oblige him to sign an agreement on the taking of the flat in question for State needs and to have him, and the others residing in the flat, evicted. 13.  On 10 March 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the Agency’s claim, ordering the applicants to sign the agreement for the total amount of USD 20,080. 14.  On 24 March 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal. 15.  On 17 May 2005 the Court of Appeal granted the Agency’s claim upon appeal. 16.  On 31 May 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law in which they argued, inter alia, that the deprivation of their property was not prescribed by law as required by Article 28 of the Constitution and that there was no public interest in depriving them of their property. 17.  On 7 July 2005 the Court of Cassation decided to dismiss the applicants’ appeal. 18.  On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants.