CASE OF GHASABYAN 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 1945, 1981, 1971 and 1972 respectively and live in Yerevan. 7. The applicant Levon Ghasabyan (hereafter, the first applicant) owned a flat which measured 57 sq. m. and was situated at 25 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The remaining three applicants – the first applicant’s family members who resided in the same flat – allege that they enjoyed a right of use in respect of that flat. 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 1 December 2004 the first applicant’s flat was valued upon the request of the Agency by a valuation organisation. The market value of the flat was estimated at 23,640 United States dollars (USD). 10. By a letter of 14 January 2005 the Agency informed the first applicant that his flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at USD 23,640, and offered him this amount as compensation. An additional sum of USD 14,827.01 was offered to him as a financial incentive if he signed an agreement within five days. 11. By a letter of 18 January 2005 the first applicant expressed his consent to sign an agreement but disagreed with the amount of compensation offered. 12. On 20 January 2005 the Agency lodged a claim against the first applicant, seeking to oblige him to sign an agreement on the taking of his flat for State needs and to have him and his family members evicted. 13. On 3 March 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the Agency’s claim, ordering the first applicant to sign an agreement for the total amount of USD 23,640 and that he and his family members be evicted. 14. On 15 March 2005 the first applicant lodged an appeal. The remaining three applicants allege that they unsuccessfully sought to be recognised as parties to the proceedings, despite the fact that they enjoyed a right of use in respect of the flat in question and the fact that their eviction was ordered by the District Court. 15. On 12 April 2005 the Civil Court of Appeal granted the Agency’s claim upon appeal and dismissed that of the first applicant. 16. On 27 April 2005 the applicants jointly lodged an appeal. 17. On 26 May 2005 the Court of Cassation examined the appeal only in its part concerning the first applicant and decided to dismiss it. 18. On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants.