CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 octobre 2018

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 222 October 2018 Osmanyan and Amiraghyan v. Armenia - 71306/11 Judgment 11.10.2018 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Award of market value of expropriated land, without addressing farmers’ loss of main source of income: violation Facts – The applicants are a family of five who make their living from agriculture. They jointly owned a plot of arable land, which became subject to expropriation for the purpose of a copper-molybdenum exploitation project implemented by a State-owned company. The applicants were awarded compensation representing the highest estimated market value of three different evaluations with the addition of the 15% statutory surplus. Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The expropriation of the applicants’ property had been carried out in the public interest and on the basis of the legal provisions which were accessible and clear enough to enable the applicants to foresee in general terms the manner in which the market value for their property had been evaluated. There were no elements sufficiently demonstrating that the market value of the applicants’ land had been grossly underestimated. However, the applicants had lost their main source of income as a result of the expropriation and this had not been taken into account by the domestic courts in their decisions on the amount of the compensation due. The courts had decided that, despite the circumstances, the applicants should be provided with compensation determined in relation to the prices of real estate situated in the area subject to expropriation, thus not addressing the issue of whether the compensation granted would have covered the applicants’ actual loss involved in deprivation of means of subsistence or at least would have been sufficient for them to acquire equivalent land within the area in which they lived. The applicants had therefore borne an excessive individual burden. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (See also Lallement v. France , 46044/99 , 11   April 2002)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes