BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ashot POGHOSYAN and Others v Armenia - 3310/06 [2011] ECHR 1992 (15 November 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1992.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1992 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
3310/06
by Ashot POGHOSYAN and Others
against
Armenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Luis
López Guerra,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and
Santiago Quesada,
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 January 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 10 September 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A. The circumstances of the case
B. Relevant domestic law
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
17. Following unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations the Government informed the Court, by letter dated 10 September 2010, that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
18. The declaration provided as follows:
“...the Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration –its acknowledgement of the deprivation of the applicants’ possessions not in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 [to] the Convention.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government, declare that they offer to pay 45,000 Euros jointly to the applicants. The Government consider this declaration to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law.
The sum referred to above, that is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the [Convention]. In the event of failure to pay the sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points.
...
Consequently, the Government are of the opinion that the circumstances of the above application may lead to the conclusion set out in sub-paragraph (c) of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, thus that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the light of the Government’s unilateral declaration.”
19. In a letter of 26 October 2010 the applicants expressed the view that, firstly, the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low given the location of the expropriated flat. Secondly, since their flat was a separate one-storey building, they enjoyed an unrestricted right under the Civil Code to use the underlying plot of land measuring 60 sq. m. However, the sum offered by the Government did not in any way cover the loss of their right to use that land. The amount of this loss should have been calculated and added to the value of their flat. Thirdly, there was a disagreement between the parties regarding the facts of the case, more specifically, the scope of their possessions. According to the Government, their possessions only included the expropriated flat, while they argued that their possessions also included the right to use the above-mentioned underlying plot of land.
21. The Court points out that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
22. It also notes that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
23. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; also WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
24. The Court has already established in a case against Armenia the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the deprivation of property in the centre of Yerevan for the purposes of implementation of town-planning projects under the Government Decree no. 1151-N (see Minasyan and Semerjyan, cited above, §§ 69-72). It notes that the circumstances of the present case and the nature of the applicants’ complaint are almost identical. The Court therefore considers that the nature and the amount of the proposed redress, that is the payment of EUR 45,000 jointly to the applicants, is consistent with the principles established and the amount awarded in the just satisfaction judgment in the case of Minasyan and Semerjyan ((just satisfaction), no. 27651/05, § 17-21, 7 June 2011), as far as the applicants’ flat is concerned.
25. As regards the applicants’ arguments concerning the underlying plot of land, the Court notes that the applicants raised this issue neither before the domestic courts nor in their application to the Court. Thus, the plot of land in question was never an object of the present dispute either at the domestic level or before the Court. The first time the applicants claimed any rights, including compensation, in respect of that plot of land was in their observations and just satisfaction claim submitted on 16 November 2007. The Court therefore considers that the alleged disagreement as to the facts falls clearly beyond the scope of the present application and does not affect the main issues examined in it. Furthermore, it lacks competence to examine this complaint for the failure to exhaust the domestic remedies and to comply with the six months’ time-limit.
26. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed which the Court finds reasonable in the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
27. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the existing case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Santiago Quesada Josep
Casadevall
Registrar President