Communicated on 9 July 2019
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 32986/10
Hovhannes GHUKASYAN and others
against Armenia
lodged on 9 June 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The first applicant, Mr Hovhannes Ghukasyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Yerevan. The second applicant, Ms Zvart Mryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1935 and lived in Yerevan. The third applicant, Ms Lusik Mryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Yerevan. The second applicant was the mother of the first and third applicants. The fourth applicant, “Olimp Producers’ Cooperative”, is a legal entity established in 1995 by the first, second and third applicants in Yerevan.
On 22 June 2012 the second applicant died. The first applicant, her son, expressed his wish to continue the proceedings before the Court also on her behalf.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicants’ real estate and its evaluation for expropriation purposes
1. The first and second applicants owned a house and a plot of land situated at 24 Arami Street in the centre of Yerevan. The house consisted of 54 sq. m of living space and a 34.6 sq. m terrace, while the plot of land measured 281 sq. m. They also occupied an unlawful construction of 6.1 sq. m and a plot of land of 8.5 sq. m at the same address.
2. In 1995 the first, second and the third applicants registered and established the fourth applicant. The first applicant owned 95.875%, the second applicant 2.625%, and the third applicant 1.5% of the fourth applicant’s shares.
3. On 13 June 1995 the fourth applicant acquired from the State the real estate located at 4 Abovyan Street in the centre of Yerevan. On 23 June 1995 the fourth applicant’s title was registered in respect of that real estate. According to the certificate of ownership, the real estate consisted of a building on two floors, each measuring 125.22 sq. m.
4. The first applicant also owned property, which included a house where he lived with his family, measuring 147.03 sq. m, located at 4 Abovyan Street, Yerevan. Pursuant to the Mayor’s decision of 5 February 1999 the first applicant was granted a right of lease for a period of fifteen years in respect of a plot of land measuring 70.14 sq. m, which was partly occupied by that construction. His ownership and leasehold titles in respect of the construction and the plot of land were registered on 26 February 1999.
5. On 12 January 2007 the first applicant applied to the State Real Estate Registry (“the SRER”) seeking to register his ownership in respect of the plot of land of 70.14 sq. m at 4 Abovyan Street.
6. On 29 January 2007 the first applicant’s request was rejected on the grounds that the land concerned was situated in an expropriation zone and, therefore, no registration of title was possible in respect of that property.
7. On 15 February 2007 the Mayor of Yerevan refused to grant ownership in respect of the same plot of land, reasoning that the land was situated in an expropriation zone.
8. On 12 March 2007 the applicants received identical letters from the Yerevan Construction and Investment Project Implementation Agency (“the Agency”) stating that in accordance with Government Decree no. 108‑N dated 25 January 2007 on approving the expropriation zones of territories situated within the administrative boundaries of Yerevan to be taken for State needs (“the Decree”), the real estate belonging to them was subject to expropriation. The same letters also informed the applicants that the acquirer of their property was a private company called AFMH (“the Company”).
9. On 18 May 2007 the Agency sent to the applicants the official descriptions of their property to be expropriated, as prepared by the Agency and the Company. According to that description the building at 4 Abovyan Street, consisting of two floors and measuring 212.5 sq. m in total, belonged to the fourth applicant.
10. On 25 May 2007, at the request of the Company, expert A.E. carried out an evaluation of the market value of the first applicant’s house and the plot of land at 4 Abovyan Street. According to A.E.’s report, the market value of the house was 111,881,966 Armenian drams (“AMD”), while the value of the lease in respect of the land was AMD 2,092,672.
11. On the same date expert A.E. delivered another valuation report as regards the market value of the real estate at 24 Arami Street co-owned by the first and the second applicants. According to this report, the market value of the house was AMD 12,644,000 while the market value of the terrace was AMD 6,057,000. The market value of the plot of land was AMD 78,596,543.
12. On 26 May 2007 the Company sent an offer to the first applicant on concluding a contract on alienation of his real estate at 4 Abovyan Street for total compensation of AMD 113,974,593, as determined by the valuation report of 25 May 2007, plus a surplus of 15% of that amount, that is AMD 17,096,189, as a financial incentive. The applicant refused the offer, arguing that he was entitled to compensation for deprivation of his ownership of the land instead of compensation for deprivation of his leasehold title.
13. On 20 June 2007 the Company sent an offer to the first and the second applicants inviting them to conclude a contract on alienation of their house at 24 Arami Street for compensation of AMD 12,644,000, as determined by the valuation report of 25 May 2007, plus a surplus of 15% of that amount, that is AMD 1,896,600, as a financial incentive.
14. The first and the second applicants declined the offer of 20 June 2007 on the grounds that the proposed compensation for the house was lower than its real market value and that the offer did not include any compensation for the terrace or the plot of land.
15. It appears that on 9 October 2007 the market value of the real estate at 24 Arami Street owned by the first and second applicants was re‑evaluated as follows: AMD 14,976,000 for the house, AMD 7,270,000 for the terrace and AMD 84,075,200 for the land.
16. On 1 November 2007 the Company sent a formal offer to “the owner of the Olimp Producers’ Cooperative Hovhannes Ghukasyan” inviting him to conclude a contract on alienation of the property pursuant to which the real estate situated at 4 Abovyan Street would be transferred to the Company for a payment of AMD 138,331,000, plus 15% surplus.
17. It appears that on 21 February 2008 the market value of the first floor of the building situated at Abovyan 4 was re-estimated at AMD 180,246,000. In addition, the Company also proposed 15% surplus amounting to AMD 27,036,900.
18. According to the fourth applicant’s registration certificate, as of 17 February 2010 the third applicant was the chairperson of the fourth applicant.
19. According to the certificate provided by the State Registry of Legal Entities, as of 20 April 2010 the first three applicants had been the fourth applicant’s shareholders since 1999.
2. The proceedings concerning the first applicant’s property at 4 Abovyan Street
20. On 16 October 2007 the Company filed a claim against the first applicant, seeking to oblige him to conclude a contract on the transfer of his ownership and lease of real estate located at 4 Abovyan Street, to evict him and his family from that property and to annul his title to that property. The Company offered AMD 137,226,050 in compensation, in line with the offer of 26 May 2007, and transferred that amount to the District Court’s deposit account.
21. On 19 June 2008 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) granted the Company’s claim.
22. The first applicant appealed against that judgment on the grounds that he had not been notified about the court hearing and, as a result, had been unable to participate in the proceedings which concerned his property rights.
23. On 24 October 2008 the Civil Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. Referring to the materials of the case, it found that the first applicant had received a written notification about the hearing.
24. The first applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law, and the decision of 24 October 2008 became final.
25. On 3 February 2009 the District Court issued a writ of execution for the District Court’s judgment of 19 June 2008.
26. On 27 March 2009 the first applicant filed an application with the District Court, seeking to receive the amount of compensation awarded by the judgment of 19 June 2008.
27. On 15 April 2009 the President of the District Court rejected the first applicant’s request on the grounds that he had failed to produce any evidence that he had concluded the alienation contract ordered by the judgment of 19 June 2008, without which the amount of compensation could not be paid. According to the applicant, he did not appeal against that decision, as the domestic law did not envisage any procedure for appeal against such a decision.
28. It appears that on several occasions in 2009 and 2010 the first applicant sent letters to the Company, proposing to meet and conclude the contract ordered by the District Court’s judgment of 19 June 2008. The Company did not, apparently, respond to those proposals.
29. On 26 May 2009 the Department for Execution of Judicial Acts (“the DEJA”) initiated enforcement proceedings.
30. On 27 May 2009 the DEJA filed a letter with the SRER, seeking to terminate the first applicant’s title in respect of the real estate situated at 4 Abovyan Street. It appears that this request was not granted.
31. On 3 March 2010 the DEJA decided to compel the first applicant to take certain actions, namely to conclude the contract ordered by the District Court in its judgment of 19 June 2008.
32. On 9 March 2010 the DEJA sent a letter to the first applicant, inviting him and his family to vacate the property situated at 4 Abovyan Street by 11 a.m. on 10 March 2010.
33. The first applicant’s and his family’s eviction took place between 10 and 15 March 2010.
34. On 15 March 2010 the first applicant, the representative of the Company and the bailiff appeared before the notary public to conclude the contract ordered by the judgment of 19 June 2008. However, the notary public refused to attest the contract on the grounds that it contained errors.
35. On 16 March 2010 the applicant received the DEJA’s decision of 3 March 2010.
36. On 18 March 2010 the DEJA decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings on the grounds of actual execution of the judgment of 19 June 2008.
37. On 5 May 2010 the SRER terminated the first applicant’s title in respect of the property situated at 4 Abovyan Street.
38. On 28 September 2010 the applicant filed an application with the District Court seeking to receive the amount of compensation awarded by the judgment of 19 June 2008.
39. On 27 October 2010 the District Court granted the application and ordered the transfer of AMD 137,226,050 from its deposit account to the first applicant’s personal bank account.
3. The proceedings concerning the first and second applicants’ property at 24 Arami Street
40. On 16 October 2007 the Company filed a claim against the first and second applicants, seeking to oblige them to conclude a contract on transferring their ownership of the real estate at 24 Arami Street, evict them from that property and annul their titles in respect of that property. The Company offered to pay AMD 63,216,386, which included the compensation for the real estate and a 15% surplus as a financial incentive.
41. The first and second applicants filed a reply, arguing that the proposed compensation concerned only the house, while no compensation had been offered for the remainder of the property to be expropriated at the same address.
42. According to a court-ordered evaluation dated 11 March 2009, the market price of the first and second applicants’ common property at 24 Arami Street was as follows: AMD 15,670,000 for the house, AMD 13,033,000 for the terrace and AMD 89,371,000 for the land.
43. On 15 September 2009 the District Court granted the Company’s claim. It ordered the first and the second applicants to conclude a contract with the Company as regards the whole of their real estate situated at 24 Arami Street and to evict them. It also ordered the payment of compensation in the amount of AMD 76,902,800, that is AMD 66,872,000 plus 15% surplus. The District Court stated that it was apparent that the amount of compensation did not relate solely to the house measuring 54 sq. m, but also covered the 34.6 sq. m terrace and 281 sq. m of land.
44. The first and the second applicants appealed. They argued, in particular, that under Articles 10 and 12 of the Law on Alienation of Property for the needs of Society and the State (“the Law”) the Company was obliged to send copies of the contracts to the owners before institution of judicial proceedings against them. However, the Company had sent to the first and second applicants a copy of the contract concerning only the house. Contrary to the requirements of the Law, the Company did not make any offer as regards the terrace and the plot of land under their common ownership. The applicants stressed that, in accordance with the judgment of 15 September 2009, the terrace and the land had been included in the property to be expropriated, but the Company had failed to make an offer in that respect. As a result, the District Court had lacked competence to examine the Company’s claim in its part concerning the terrace and the plot of land.
45. On 10 December 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the judgment of 15 September 2009. It reasoned that the Company had complied with its duties under the Law, while the same law did not foresee compensation for any unauthorised construction or unlawfully occupied land.
46. The first and second applicants lodged an appeal on points of law, submitting arguments similar to those contained in their appeal against the judgment of 15 September 2009.
47. On 24 February 2010 the Court of Cassation declared their appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.
48. On 12 April 2010 the DEJA instituted enforcement proceedings.
49. On 26 April 2010 the first and second applicants, as well as the representative of the Company appeared before the notary public to conclude the contract ordered by the District Court in the judgment of 15 September 2009. However, the contract was not concluded due to the bailiff’s absence, as well as errors in the draft contract.
50. Thereafter, the first and second applicants sent letters to the President of the District Court and to the DEJA, seeking to receive the amount of AMD 76,902,800 paid by the Company to the deposit account of the District Court, pursuant to the judgment of 15 September 2009.
51. The DEJA responded that the matter was outside its competence, while the President of the District Court provided a response similar to that of 15 April 2009 (see paragraph 27).
52. On 14 May 2010 the DEJA evicted the first and second applicants from the house situated at 24 Arami Street. The enforcement proceedings were terminated on 25 May 2010 on the grounds of actual enforcement of the judgment of 15 September 2009.
53. On 14 June 2010 the first and the second applicants sent a letter to the President of the District Court, seeking to receive the compensation for their property.
54. The District Court heard the applicant’s request at an oral court session and granted it. The District Court reasoned that the Company had agreed to the payment of the amount of compensation, which was held on the deposit account of the District Court. Furthermore, the applicants had already been evicted from the house and their title had been terminated. That decision did not address the fact that the alienation contract had not been concluded, as ordered by the same court in its judgment of 15 September 2009.
55. It is not clear whether the first and second applicants eventually received the amount in question.
4. The proceedings concerning the fourth applicant’s property at 4 Abovyan Street
56. On 31 March 2008 the Company filed a claim against “the owner of the Olimp Producers’ Cooperative Hovhannes Ghukasyan” seeking to oblige him to conclude the contract proposed on 1 November 2007, to evict him from that property and to terminate his title in respect of that property. It was stated in the Company’s claim that the building at 4 Abovyan Street measured 125.22 sq. m.
57. During the proceedings there was a dispute between the parties about the actual size of the real estate to be expropriated. With reference to the information about the size of the construction indicated in the certificate of ownership, the first applicant argued that the construction consisted of two floors each measuring 125.22 sq. m. and not one of that size. The Company and the SRER, which was involved as a third party, argued that there was no second floor in the building and, therefore, the entire building measured 125.22 sq. m.
58. It appears that at some point the District Court ordered a new expert valuation of the building at 4 Abovyan Street.
59. On 1 December 2008 the court-ordered valuation report was delivered, according to which the market price of the building in question was AMD 398,314,000. It was indicated in this report that the building measured 250.44 sq. m.
60. It also appears that the first applicant, in his turn, ordered an evaluation of the same property by an expert company called “Expert Laboratory”. According to its report issued on an unspecified date, the market value of the building, including the unlawful constructions and the unregistered land, was AMD 604,542,000.
61. On 17 July 2009 the District Court decided to grant the Company’s claim. As regards the amount of compensation, which apparently covered only the evaluation of the first floor, the District Court ordered the payment of AMD 207,282,900 to the first applicant, based on the valuation of 21 February 2008. It reasoned that the other valuation reports contained in the case-file lacked credibility. The District Court also concluded that during the proceedings the first applicant had failed to prove that the attic and the basement at the same address constituted a possession and, therefore, no compensation could be ordered in that respect.
62. The first applicant appealed against that judgment. He argued that the District Court had unlawfully obliged him to take legal actions in respect of another person, that is the fourth applicant, while the fourth applicant, as a separate legal entity, had never been involved in the proceedings. He, as a shareholder, should not have been held liable for the rights and responsibilities of the fourth applicant. According to the first applicant, he lacked authority to sign contracts concerning the real estate owned by the fourth applicant. The first applicant also raised the issue of inaccuracy as regards the size of the expropriated building and the resulting reduced amount of compensation. In addition, with reference to the court‑appointed expert report of 1 December 2008, the first applicant argued that the compensation awarded by the District Court was inadequate.
63. On 19 October 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the judgment of 17 July 2009. It noted that since the first applicant owned the majority of the shares in the fourth applicant, he could have been compelled to take legal actions, for example to conclude a contract in respect of the real estate owned by the fourth applicant. Moreover, the first applicant had knowingly failed to inform the Company about the other two shareholders, thereby breaching their rights. In such a situation, the Company could lodge a claim against the first applicant only. The Court of Appeal endorsed the reasoning of the District Court as regards the size of the property and the amount of compensation.
64. The first applicant lodged an appeal on points of law raising arguments similar to those brought before the Court of Appeal. This appeal was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation on 9 December 2009.
65. On 4 February 2010 the DEJA instituted enforcement proceedings.
66. On 3 March 2010 the DEJA decided to compel the first applicant to conclude the alienation contract ordered by the District Court in its judgment of 17 July 2009.
67. Between 10 and 15 March 2010 the DEJA evicted the first and the fourth applicants from the real estate situated at 4 Abovyan Street.
68. On 11 March 2010 the third applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of 17 July 2009. She argued that she had not been notified about the proceedings while, like the first applicant, she was one of the fourth applicant’s shareholders, in addition to being its chairperson. She further argued that the obligation to conclude a contract on alienation of the real estate owned by the fourth applicant could have been imposed only on the fourth applicant and not the first applicant, who was not its owner. Even if the District Court had considered that the fourth applicant’s shareholder was a proper respondent in the case, it should have involved all the shareholders.
69. On 13 March 2010 the DEJA invited the first applicant to be present in the office of the notary public on 15 March 2010 for the conclusion of the contract with the Company as ordered by the judgment of 17 July 2009.
70. On 15 March 2015, by reference to “errors contained in the documents submitted by the parties”, the notary public refused to affirm the contract between the Company and the first applicant.
71. On 18 March 2010 the DEJA decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings on the grounds that the judgment of 17 July 2009 had been enforced.
72. On 5 May 2010 the Civil Court of Appeal rejected the third applicant’s appeal, reasoning that the revocation of the judgment of 17 July 2009 would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty. At the same time, it noted that the alienation of the real estate owned by the fourth applicant had been within the authority of the first applicant, as the majority shareholder. It also stated that the contested judgment had not breached the third applicant’s rights and that, in any event, the third applicant had the right to file a case against the first applicant for the protection of her rights.
73. The third applicant filed an appeal on points of law, which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation on 14 July 2010.
74. On an unspecified date the Company requested the District Court to clarify the judgment of 17 July 2009 arguing that its claim of 31 March 2008 and the operative part of the judgment of 17 July 2009 had concerned the fourth applicant and not the first applicant as a private individual.
75. On 26 August 2010 the District Court issued a decision on clarification of the judgment of 17 July 2009 which stated that the operative part of the judgment of 17 July 2009 should be understood as concerning the fourth applicant, rather than the first applicant.
76. The fourth applicant appealed the District Court’s decision of 26 August 2010.
77. On 15 October 2010 the Civil Court of Appeal rejected the fourth applicant’s appeal.
78. The fourth applicant filed an appeal on points of law.
79. On 1 December 2010 the Court of Cassation declared the fourth applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. The Constitution (as amended in 2005)
80. According to Article 31, everyone shall have the right to dispose of, use, manage and bequeath his property in the way he sees fit. No one can be deprived of his property, save by a court in cases prescribed by law. Property can be expropriated for the needs of society and the State only in exceptional cases of paramount public interest, in a procedure prescribed by law and with prior equivalent compensation.
2. Code of Civil Procedure (in force between 1999 and 2018)
81. According to Article 29 § 3, respondents are those legal or physical persons against whom a civil claim was filed.
3. The Law on Alienation of Property for the needs of Society and the State (in force from 30 December 2006)
82. According to Article 10 § 1, the acquirer is required to send copies of the expropriation contract to the property owners concerned by the time‑limit for commencement of the alienation process.
83. According to Article 12 § 1, if the property owners and persons possessing other property rights, who had received the expropriation contract, do not sign the contract within three months after its receipt, then the acquirer shall deposit the amounts of compensation with a court or notary public and notify the persons concerned.
84. According to Article 13 § 1, if the property is not alienated within seven days after deposition of the amounts of compensation, the acquirer is obliged to apply to a court seeking judicial expropriation within a month.
85. According to Article 16 § 1, if the acquirer fails to take any of the following actions prescribed by Articles 10, 12 and 13 within the prescribed time-limits, namely to send a copy of the contract to property owners and other property right-holders, to deposit the amounts of compensation with a court/notary public or to institute court proceedings against the property right-holders within the time-limits prescribed by those provisions, it should be presumed that the acquirer has abandoned its intention to acquire the real estate in question and, as a result, all related expropriation documents shall be invalid.
4. Government Decree No. 108-N of 25 January 2007 approving the expropriation zones of territories situated within the administrative boundaries of Yerevan to be taken for State needs and approving the procedure of recording the description of property situated in those territories and the format of the description record (ՀՀ Կառավարության 2007 թ. հունվարի 25-ի թիվ 108-Ն որոշումը Երևան քաղաքի վարչական սահմաններում որոշ տարածքներում բացառիկ՝ գերակա հանրային շահ ճանաչելու, գերակա հանրային շահ ճանաչված տարածքներում առկա սեփականության օբյեկտների նկարագրության արձանագրության կազմման կարգը և նկարագրության արձանագրության օրինակելի ձևը հաստատելու մասին)
86. According to the Decree, the real estate in the area concerned had to be taken for the needs of the State.
COMPLAINTS
The first applicant complains that the final and binding judgment of 19 June 2008 was not enforced.
The first and second applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the expropriation of their real estate situated at 24 Arami Street was not carried out in accordance with the conditions provided for by law. In particular, they argue that the Company did not send to them an offer of acquisition, which was mandatory under Article 10 § 1 of the Law on Alienation of Property for the Needs of Society and the State, concerning their plot of land measuring 281 sq. m and the terrace measuring 34.6 sq. m. They also complain under the same provision that they did not receive any compensation for the expropriation of the plot of land and the terrace in question.
The third and the fourth applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to involve them in the proceedings concerning the expropriation of the fourth applicant’s property. In particular, the judgment of 17 July 2009 determined their property rights but the District Court neither notified them of nor involved them in the civil proceedings.
The fourth applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the deprivation of its property was not lawful, as required under that provision. In particular, the domestic courts deprived it of its property without any judicial process filed against it, as required under the domestic law.
The fourth applicant also complains under the same provision that it had neither been offered nor received compensation for the second floor of the building at 4 Abovyan Street measuring 125.22 sq. m.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does the first applicant have standing to continue the proceedings before the Court in the late second applicant’s stead?
2. Was the judgment of 18 June 2008 concerning the expropriation of the first applicant’s property fully enforced, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009; and also Committee judgments of Avakemyan v. Armenia, no. 39563/09, 30 March 2017 and Nikoghosyan v. Armenia, no. 75651/11, 18 May 2017)? The Government are requested to provide evidence of a bank transfer of the amount of compensation ordered by the judgment of 18 June 2008 to the first applicant.
3. Did the expropriation of the first and second applicants’ property at 24 Arami Street satisfy the requirements of “lawfulness” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (Minasyan and Semerjyan v. Armenia, no. 27651/05, §§ 66-76, 23 June 2009)?
In particular, was the expropriation of the plot of land of 281 sq. m and the terrace of 34.6 sq. m co-owned by the first and second applicants carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Law on Alienation of Property for the Needs of Society and the State?
Furthermore, did the first and second applicants receive the amount of compensation awarded by the judgment of 15 September 2009? If so, did that amount include compensation for the expropriation of the plot of land and the terrace at the same address (Osmanyan and Amiraghyan v. Armenia, no. 71306/11, §§ 62-71, 11 October 2018)?
4. Did the third and fourth applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in so far as the proceedings in relation to the expropriation of the fourth applicant’s property at 4 Abovyan Street are concerned? In particular, were the right to adversarial proceedings and the principle of equality of arms respected in the case of the third and fourth applicants (Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, 31 May 2016)?
5. Was the expropriation of the fourth applicant’s property at 4 Abovyan Street carried out in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Minasyan and Semerjyan v. Armenia, no. 27651/05, §§ 66-76, 23 June 2009)? In particular, was the fourth applicant deprived of its property through a proper judicial process, as required by Article 31 of the Constitution?
Furthermore, was the expropriation of the fourth applicant’s property at 4 Abovyan Street in conformity with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in view of the fact that no compensation was offered for the second floor (measuring 125.22 sq. m) of the building in question (Osmanyan and Amiraghyan v. Armenia, no. 71306/11, §§ 62-71, 11 October 2018)?
The Government are requested to provide a copy of the fourth applicant’s appeal against the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court’s decision of 26 August 2010 on clarification of the same court’s judgment of 17 July 2009.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy