CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sABC4C207 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   Communicated on 30 January 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 325/10 Vardan NALBANDYAN and Nelli DANIELYAN against Armenia lodged on 14 December 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Vardan Nalbandyan (“the first applicant”) and Ms   Nelli Danielyan (“the second applicant”), are Armenian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1987 respectively and live in Yerevan. They are represented before the Court by Mr N. Baghdasaryan, 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. 1.     The applicants’ relationship and description of the ownership rights in respect of their house before expropriation Mr Vardan Nalbandyan (“the first applicant”) is the brother of the late A.N.; A.N. was the mother of Ms Nelli Danielyan (“the second applicant”). The first applicant and A.N. jointly owned a house measuring 45.5 square metres; that house was situated on a plot of land measuring 0.14323 hectares that was jointly owned by the first applicant and the State (the State apparently owned twelfth-thirteenths of the said plot of land). That house and that plot of land were located at the address 68 Arami Street, Yerevan. After A.N.’s death both of the applicants inherited her share in the house in equal parts. 2.     The first set of proceedings and the failure to register the first applicant’s ownership rights over a plot of land On 7 April 2004 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan allowed a claim lodged by the first applicant against the Kentron division of the State Real Estate Registry (hereinafter “the SRER”) and (as a third party) the municipality of Yerevan. In allowing the claim the District Court acknowledged the first applicant’s ownership rights over (i) an unauthorised construction measuring 21.8 square metres that was stood adjacent to the house, and (ii) an additional plot of land measuring 18.7 square metres, together with an auxiliary building (also measuring 18.7 square metres) constructed on it – all which were also located at 68 Arami Street, Yerevan. The District Court also obliged the Kentron division of the SRER to register the first applicant’s ownership rights over the aforementioned property. On 31 May 2004 the Civil Court of Appeal, after an appeal by the mayor of Yerevan, upheld the District Court’s judgment. On 23 July 2004 the Court of Cassation in the final instance dismissed an appeal on points of law by the mayor of Yerevan as unsubstantiated and upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 31 May 2004. On that date the latter judgment became enforceable. On 27 August 2004 the Yerevan division of the Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Acts (hereinafter “the DEJA”) instituted enforcement proceedings under a writ of execution issued by the Court of Appeal. On 18 February 2005 in the course of the enforcement proceedings the SRER issued an ownership rights registration certificate ( անշարժ գույքի սեփականության իրավունքի գրանցման վկայական ) in respect of the address 68 Arami Street; this certificate confirmed the registration, inter alia , of the first applicant’s title over the 21.8-square-metre unauthorised construction and the 18.7-square-metre auxiliary construction. On 15 July 2005 the bailiff decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings on the grounds of his having implemented the measures specified in the writ of execution. The first applicant brought a claim against the DEJA, contesting the bailiff’s decision of 15 July 2005 on the grounds that the writ of execution had not been fully enforced given the fact that the Kentron division of the SRER had failed to register his title over the 18.7-square-metre plot of land. On 31 January 2006 the Ajapnyak and Davtashen District Court of Yerevan allowed his claim. No appeal was lodged against this judgment, which thus became final. On 9 March 2006 the DEJA resumed the enforcement proceedings. The first applicant alleges that his ownership rights over the 18.7 square-metre plot of land was never registered and that the Civil Court’s judgment of 31 May 2004 was never fully enforced. 3.     The second set of proceedings and the failure to register A.N.’s ownership rights over the jointly-owned plot of land On 20 May 2005 A.N. made a will under which she bequeathed all her property, including “her part in the house and the plot of land” [1] to the first applicant. On 1 June 2005 A.N. died. Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the first applicant brought a claim before the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, seeking to assert A.N.’s property rights as a co-owner in respect of the jointly-owned plot of land located at 68 Arami Street, Yerevan. On 30 September 2005 the District Court allowed the claim. It also confirmed that A.N.’s co-ownership rights in respect of the jointly owned land were subject to State registrations. . It appears that no appeal was lodged against this judgment and that it became enforceable fifteen days after its delivery. On 24 October 2005 the Yerevan Division of the DEJA instituted enforcement proceedings under a writ of execution issued by the District Court. On 22 December 2005 the first applicant, as A.N.’s heir under her will, obtained an inheritance certificate ( ժառանգական իրավունքի վկայագիր ) in respect of A.N.’s property confirming that he owned one quarter of the house situated at 68 Arami Street, Yerevan. On the same day a similar certificate confirmed that the second applicant was also an heir of A.N. It appears that A.N.’s property was equally divided between the first and the second applicant. On 20 January 2006 the Kentron division of the SRER issued ownership certificate no. 2041494, which registered the applicants’ ownership rights as established by the ownership certificates. In particular, certificate no.   2041494 provided that both applicants owned the house at 68 Arami Street – specifically, the 18.7-square-metre living space and the 21.8-square-metre auxiliary construction were owned only by the first applicant and the whole plot of land measuring 0.14323 hectares was jointly owned by the first applicant and the State. Certificate no. 2041494 did not specify the ownership rights determined by the District Court’s judgment of 30   September 2005 in respect of the jointly owned plot of land. The applicants allege that A.N.’s co-ownership rights over the 0.14323-hectare plot of land were never registered and that, for that reason, they have been unable to inherit that property. 4.     Expropriation of the applicants’ property On 6 August 2005 the first applicant and A.N. received an offer from the Yerevan Construction and Investment Project Implementation Agency, a non-commercial State organisation (hereafter “the Agency”). The Agency informed them that the house and the plot of land located at 68 Arami Street were required by the State and would be expropriated; it proposed that the first applicant and A.N. sign an agreement on the transfer of their ownership rights to the State in return for compensation. On 20 February 2006, after the death of A.N., both of the applicants, as A.N.’s heirs, again received the same offer. It appears that the applicants declined this offer. On 7 March 2006 the Agency lodged a claim with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan against the applicants, seeking to (i) oblige them to sign an agreement on the expropriation of their property for State needs and (ii) have them and their family members evicted. On 28 March 2006 the applicants concluded an agreement with the Agency on the taking of the property for State needs in return for compensation. As stipulated in the agreement, the property to be transferred consisted of a house measuring 18.7 square metres, an auxiliary construction measuring 21.8 square metres, one-thirteenth of a 1,432-square-metre plot of land, owned solely by the first applicant, and a house measuring 45.5 square metres jointly owned by both of the applicants. This agreement did not in any way refer to the applicant’s property rights in respect of plots of land that were the subjects of the above-mentioned enforceable judgments. It appears that the proceedings in respect of the Agency’s claim against the applicants were terminated. On 24 October 2007 the Kentron division of SRER rejected an application by the first applicant (apparently for his ownership rights arising from the abovementioned judgments to be registered) on the grounds that the property had been expropriated by the State, the constructions in question had already been demolished and the State was the current owner of the plot of land. COMPLAINT The applicants complain that non-enforcement of the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 31 May 2004 in the first applicant’s favour and the District Court’s judgment of 30 September 2005 in A.N.’s favour violated their rights, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the judgement of the Civil Court of Appeal of 31 May 2004 fully enforced? If not, was the non-enforcement of the judgment in the first applicant’s favour compatible with the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     Were the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 violated on account of the alleged non-enforcement of the final judgment of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan of 30 September 2005? In that context, what was A.N.’s share in the jointly owned plot of land, which was acknowledged by this judgment and allegedly not registered? [1] This is a word for word translation from the will.