Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)89 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Nikoghosyan and Melkonyan against Armenia

(Application No. 11724/04, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008 )

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicants ’ right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)89

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of

Nikoghosyan and Melkonyan against Armenia

Introductory case summary

The case concerns an infringement of the applicants ’ right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicants, who had appealed before the Civil Court of Appeal in proceedings against a third person, M., concerning the annulment of a property sale, were prevented from taking part in the hearing as they did not receive the summons until after the hearing had been held. They appealed to the Court of Cassation which, in its decision of 26/09/2003, did not touch upon the issue of the applicants ’ absence from the appeal hearing.

I. Just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

The applicants made no claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The European Court , noting that it could not speculate as to the outcome of proceedings had they been conducted in accordance with Article 6§1, rejected the applicants ’ claims for pecuniary damage.

In this context, the Court noted that the most appropriate form of redress in cases where it finds that a trial was held in the applicant ’ s absence in breach of Article 6§1 would, as a rule, be to reopen the proceedings and re-examine the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair trial.

b) Individual measures

Following the European Court ’ s judgment, the applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation. By decision of 13/03/2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the previous judgments of its Civil and Commercial Chamber of 26/09/2003 and of the Civil Court of Appeal of 10/06/2003 and transmitted the case to the Court of General Jurisdiction of Aragatsotn Marz (first-instance court) for new examination.

The first-instance court conducted a new hearing, taking into consideration the conclusions of the European Court ’ s judgment regarding due notification of hearings. On 13/08/2009 it granted the claim of M ’ s family against the applicants.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The European Court ’ s judgment has been translated into Armenian, published in the Official Bulletin of the Republic of Armenia and posted on the official website of the Ministry of Justice ( www.moj. a m ) as of 04/06/2008 and on the website of the Judiciary of the Republic of Armenia ( www.c o urt.am ).

The Armenian version of the judgment has been sent out to all judicial bodies by e-transmission and in particular to the Court of Cassation and the Civil Court of Appeal. It is therefore expected that, should a similar situation occur, the domestic courts will not fail to respect the European Court ’ s case-law on this point.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no other individual measure is required, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Armenia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies