Communicated on 14 November 2016
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 603/10
Katya KHLGHATYAN and others
against Armenia
lodged on 16 December 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Armenian nationals, members of one family, who live in Ararat. The first applicant, Mrs Katya Khlghatyan, was born in 1949. The other applicants are the first applicant’s family members, who all live together. Mr Arayik Khlghatyan and Mr Artak Khlghatyan, born in 1972 and 1975 respectively, are the first applicant’s sons. Mrs Nelli Musikyan, born in 1980, and Mrs Melanya Manukyan, born in 1977, are the latters’ wives, respectively. Miss Ani Khlghatyan, Miss Katrin Khlghatyan, Miss Mary Khlghatyan and Mr Khachik Khlghatyan, born in 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2009, are the children of the first applicant’s sons and her grandchildren. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms Monika Hakobyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
Until 1989 the first applicant and her family lived in an apartment in the city of Ararat, Armenia, with the right of use of accommodation.
It appears that in 1989 the Executive Committee of the Ararat City Council took a decision to demolish the building in which their apartment was situated, with the purpose of constructing a new building in its place.
On 26 June 1989 the Executive Committee concluded an agreement with the first applicant’s husband about allocating an apartment to his family, suitable for the number of his family members, in the newly‑constructed building.
On 29 August 1996 the Executive Committee granted the application of the first applicant’s husband, permitting the latter’s family to occupy temporarily a one-room living space (hereinafter referred to as a communal apartment) in a communal building until the newly‑constructed apartment could be handed over. In 1997, after the death of the first applicant’s husband, she was registered as the user of this apartment.
On 25 March, 5 and 22 May 2008 the first applicant applied to the Mayor of Ararat seeking to “privatise” (to obtain ownership from the State without payment) the communal apartment.
On 14 April and 27 May 2008 the Mayor replied to the applicant, informing her of the impossibility of privatising it in her name since one of the rooms used by the first applicant’s family had already been sold to another person, F.M., in 2004 and the latter had already obtained a certificate of ownership rights.
On 8 July 2008 the first applicant brought a civil action against the Municipality of Ararat, F.M. and the State Committee of the Real Estate Registry, which was brought into the lawsuit as a third party, asking the court to declare partially invalid the sale contract or to oblige the Municipality of Ararat, under the agreement concluded with her husband, to allocate an apartment to her.
On 12 February 2009 the Southern Civil Court partly granted the first applicant’s claim, obliging the Municipality to provide her with the apartment prescribed by the agreement of 26 June 1989. The remainder of her claim was rejected as being unsubstantiated.
The first applicant appealed against this judgment. No appeal was lodged by the Municipality of Ararat.
On 22 May 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment.
The first applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
On 22 July 2009 the Court of Cassation declared her appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.
Meanwhile, on 18 June 2009, the first applicant applied to the Mayor of Ararat requesting that he provide her with an apartment, as required by the judgment of 12 February 2009. In reply to this letter, on 18 June 2009 the Mayor informed her that no construction was being carried out and no apartments were available at the material time. The Mayor also stated that her family would be allocated an apartment in the new building to be constructed in place of the one demolished.
It appears that thereafter the applicants regularly applied to the Municipality and other State authorities, such as the President and the Minister of Urban Development, asking about the construction of the new building and requesting a solution to their housing issues, but to no avail. They allege that the judgment of 12 February 2009 was never enforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the failure to enforce the final and binding judgment of 12 February 2009 in the first applicant’s favour.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Were the rights of the applicant Katya Khlghatyan, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, violated on account of the non-enforcement of the final judgment of the Southern Civil Court of 12 February 2009?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy