FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 40864\/06
\nAshot GRIGORYAN and others
\nagainst Armenia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16\u00a0October\u00a02018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ksenija Turkovi\u0107, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nPauliine Koskelo, judges,<\/p>\n
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 October 2006,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 June 2017 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants\u2019 reply to that declaration,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. All applicants were represented by Mr V. Grigoryan, a lawyer practising in London. The Armenian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia to the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that the deprivation of their property had been in breach of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that the ensuing judicial proceedings were in breach of the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention. The applicants also complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of lack of access to a court to challenge decrees of the executive related to the expropriation project. Relying on Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants had raised a number of other complaints in relation to the procedure of expropriation of their property.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 March 2009 the Court (Third Section) decided to communicate to the Government the part of the application concerning the applicants\u2019 complaint of lack of access to a court under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and the complaints of applicants Kpryan and Asribabayan (the second and fifth applicants respectively) under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 25 December 2011, the Court was informed that Kaspar\u00a0Sarkisov (the seventh applicant) had died. His spouse, Anzhela\u00a0Asribabayan (the second applicant), his daughters, Elina Sarkisova and Rosalia Sarkisova (the eighth and ninth applicants respectively), and his son, Alexandre Sarkisov (the sixth applicant), expressed their wish to pursue his application before the Court.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The Government did not submit any comments in this respect.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0In the absence of any objection on the part of the Government, the Court sees no reason not to allow the seventh applicant\u2019s legal heirs, his spouse and children, to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stead.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the second and fifth applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 13 June 2017 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article\u00a037 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant parts of the declaration provided as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c… the Armenian authorities acknowledge that deprivation of the applicants\u2019 possessions was not in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 of the Convention.The Government regret that the deprivation of the applicants\u2019 possessions was incompatible with the principle of lawfulness – not carried out under \u201cconditions provided for by law\u201d. No law was adopted in connection with the expropriation of applicants\u2019 property and the entire expropriation process was based on a number of Government Decrees.<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n The Government of the Republic of Armenia, acknowledging the violation of the applicants\u2019 rights, offer to pay to the applicants Marine Kpryan and Anzhela\u00a0Asribabayan the amount of EUR 118,000 jointly to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as any and all costs and expenses.<\/p>\n The above-mentioned sum will be free of any taxes that may be applicable and will be converted into Armenian drams at the rate applicable on the date of payment payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. …\u201d<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 12 July 2017, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the grounds that the Government had failed to acknowledge the violation of Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 to the Convention, also as regards the lack of a legitimate aim for the interference and the lack of proportionality thereof, as well as the violations of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention. The applicants requested the Court to reject the Government\u2019s proposal, noting that the amount of compensation offered therein was derisory in the light of the damage suffered by them and the acceptance by the Court of the unilateral declaration would allow the Government to avoid responding to their complaints on the merits.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article\u00a037 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\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:<\/p>\n \u201cfor any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application\u201d.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that, in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(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.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0To this end, the Court has examined the declarationin the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a011602\/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has established, in a number of cases brought 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, among other authorities, Minasyan and Semerjyan v.\u00a0Armenia, no. 27651\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 69-72, 23 June 2009; Hovhannisyan and Shiroyan v. Armenia, no. 5065\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 42-47, 20 July 2010; and Tunyan and Others v. Armenia, no. 22812\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 35-39, 9 October 2012).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed \u2013 which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see, in particular, Minasyan and Semerjyan v. Armenia (just satisfaction), no.\u00a027651\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 17-21, 7 June 2011) \u2013 the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c)).<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Moreover, in the light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive 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 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes the modalities agreed by the respondent Government for the payment of the amount proposed.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article\u00a037 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4March 2008).<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the complaint covered by the Government\u2019s unilateral declaration.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the remainder of the application<\/strong><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants also complained that they were precluded from disputing the lawfulness of Government decrees which authorised the deprivation of their property. The second and fifth applicants complained under the same provision that there had been a breach of the principle of \u201cequality of arms\u201d during the expropriation proceedings and that the courts had failed in their obligation to give reasons for their judgments.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the facts of the case and its decision to strike the application out of its list of cases as far as the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the deprivation of the second and fifth applicants\u2019 property is concerned, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants\u2019 complaint of lack of access to a court and second and fifth applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 6 of the Convention\u00a0(see,mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410\/97, \u00a7 64, 10 May 2007; and Ghasabyan and Others v\u00a0Armenia, no. 23566\/05, \u00a7 29, 13 November 2014).<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n Decides to strike that part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention.<\/p>\n Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 8 November 2018.<\/p>\n Renata Degener\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ksenija Turkovi\u0107 <\/p>\n Appendix<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ashot GRIGORYAN is an Armenian national who was born in 1954, lives in Yerevan<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Anzhela ASRIBABAYAN is an Armenian national who was born in 1955, lives in Odintsovo<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Armen GRIGORYAN is an Armenian national who was born in 1988, lives in Yerevan<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hayk GRIGORYAN is an Armenian national who was born in 1986, lives in Yerevan<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Marine KPRYAN is an Armenian national who was born in 1958, lives in Yerevan<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Aleksandr SARKISOV is a Russian national who was born in 1981, lives in Odintsovo<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Kaspar SARKISOV was an Russian national who was born in 1947 and died in 2011<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Elina SARKISOVA is an Armenian national who was born in 1978, lives in Odintsovo<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Rosalia SARKISOVA is a Russian national who was born in 1977, lives in Odintsovo<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n