CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
6. The applicants were born in 1946, 1954 and 1985 respectively and live in Yerevan. 7. The applicants jointly owned a flat which measured 44.1 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 found to be 16,350 United States dollars (USD). 10. By a letter of 14 January 2005 the Agency informed the applicants that their flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at USD 16,350 by an independent licensed organisation. An additional sum of USD 12,638.55 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 an unspecified date the Agency lodged a claim against the applicants, seeking to oblige them to sign an agreement on the taking of their flat for State needs and to have them evicted. 13. On 1 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 16,350. 14. On 15 March 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal. 15. On 30 March 2005 the Civil Court of Appeal granted the Agency’s claim upon appeal. 16. On 13 April 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. 17. On 26 May 2005 the Court of Cassation decided to dismiss the applicants’ appeal. 18. On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants.