Communicated on 11 July 2016
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 7205/11
Margarita PAPOYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 29 December 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Margarita Papoyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Yerevan.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
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, having a total area of 345,000 sq. m.
It appears that the applicant ran a small kiosk on a plot of land situated within one such zone. It also appears that the authorities demolished this kiosk for the development of that area within the framework of Decree no. 1151-N.
On 10 October 2002, as compensation for the applicant’s kiosk, the Mayor of Yerevan adopted decision no. 1785-A granting her the right to lease a plot of public land of 5 sq. m. at a specified address in the Kentron District of Yerevan for 7 years and to construct and run her kiosk on this land. By the same decision, the Mayor authorised the local authority of Kentron District to conclude the lease agreement with the applicant.
On 17 December 2002 the applicant received the zoning of the plot of land specified in decision no. 1785-A.
On 26 December 2006 and 24 August 2007, following the applicant’s enquiries concerning the implementation of decision no. 1785-A, the Kentron District authorities suggested that the applicant address her enquiries to the Mayor of Yerevan, while on 1 May and 6 September 2007 the latter suggested that the applicant address her inquiries to Kentron District.
On 26 February 2008 the applicant initiated proceedings in the Administrative Court against the Mayor and Kentron District, seeking to implement decision no. 1785-A.
On 30 July 2008 the Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim and obliged the Mayor of Yerevan to conclude the agreement specified in decision no. 1785-A with the applicant. No appeals were lodged and this judgment became final on 30 August 2008.
On 9 September 2008 the Administrative Court issued a writ of execution for the judgment of 30 July 2008.
On 24 September 2008 the Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Acts (DEJA) instituted enforcement proceedings against Yerevan City, obliging it to conclude the land lease agreement with the applicant within ten days.
On 2 March, 23 April, 3 July, 31 July, 23 November, 23 December 2009, 17 and 18 March 2010 and 7 April 2010, upon the applicant’s enquiries concerning the enforcement of the judgment of 30 July 2008, bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgment of 30 July 2008 was in progress and that she would be informed of the results.
On 16 June 2010 the applicant initiated proceedings in the Administrative Court against the DEJA, requesting the court to oblige it to enforce the judgment of 30 July 2008.
On 22 June 2010 the Administrative Court declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible on the ground that she lacked standing. The Administrative Court reasoned that the applicant had failed to show that her rights were breached as a result of an administrative action by the DEJA. The Administrative Court noted that the DEJA had taken certain actions in order to enforce the judgment of 30 July 2008 and that the enforcement procedure was still pending. The decision of the Administrative Court of 22 June 2010 was upheld in the final instance by the Court of Cassation on 25 August 2010.
On 21 October and 4 November 2010, following the applicant’s enquiry, the bailiff responded that the enforcement was in progress and that the applicant would be informed of the results.
On 24 January 2011, pursuant to the applicant’s enquiries concerning the implementation of decision no. 1785-A, the Mayor of Yerevan informed her of the changes in legislation concerning land and reminded the applicant that she had to conclude the land lease agreement with Kentron District.
On 4 August 2011, relying on Section 41 § 1(8) of the Law on the Enforcement of Judicial Acts, the DEJA decided to discontinue the proceedings on the ground that enforcement of the judgment of 30 July 2008 had become impossible. It reasoned that, by letter of 17 June 2009 addressed to the applicant, the Mayor of Yerevan had suggested that the applicant approach the department of management of immovable property of the Yerevan Mayor’s Office for the implementation of the judgment of 30 July 2008, but the applicant had failed to do so.
On 27 February 2012 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Administrative Court against the DEJA, seeking to declare the decision of 4 August 2011 null and void, as well as to oblige the DEJA to enforce the judgment of 30 July 2008.
On 15 February 2013 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s first claim, reasoning that there were no sufficient grounds for declaring the DEJA’s decision of 4 August 2011 null and void. It further refused to examine the applicant’s second claim.
On 14 May 2012 the applicant initiated proceedings in the Administrative Court against the DEJA, seeking to oblige it to enforce the judgment of 30 July 2008.
On 12 June 2013 the Administrative Court terminated the proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. This decision was upheld in the final instance by the Court of Cassation on 18 December 2013.
B. Relevant domestic law
Section 41 of the Law of 5 May 1998 on Compulsory Enforcement of Judicial Acts prescribes the grounds for termination of the enforcement procedure by the bailiff. According to paragraph 1(8), the bailiff shall discontinue the enforcement procedure if, during the enforcement procedure concerning non-proprietary claims, it becomes evident that the enforcement of the judgment has become impossible.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Administrative Court of 30 July 2008.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Administrative Court of 30 July 2008 awarded in the applicant’s favour compatible with the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Does the failure to enforce that judgment constitute an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy