Published on 3 May 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 25992/16 Aram ATIKYAN against Armenia lodged on 2 May 2016 communicated on 12 April 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged unlawful de facto expropriation of the applicant ’ s house and plot of land without any compensation.

According to the certificate of ownership issued on 19 February 2004, the applicant owned a house and a plot of land measuring respectively 39.4 sq. m . , and 0.0046 ha situated at 7 Aygestan Street in the town of Spitak .

On 9 June 2005 the Spitak Municipality (“the Municipality”) concluded an agreement with the applicant whereby he undertook to transfer his house and plot of land to the Municipality. In compensation, a two-room flat with the right of ownership was to be allotted to the applicant by 2007. The authorities, however, never allotted the said flat to the applicant. Subsequently, he lodged a restitution claim against the Municipality seeking to have his house and land restored. Although the domestic courts acknowledged that the applicant ’ s property had been taken for State needs in breach of the national law, they refused the applicant ’ s restitution claim by the final decision of the Court of Cassation dated 28 October 2015. That decision was served on the applicant on 2 December 2015.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that failure to transfer to him the flat he had agreed in compensation for the de facto expropriation of his house and plot of land amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with his property rights. He also complains under the same provision that this interference imposed an excessive burden on him. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy to seek compensation for his de facto expropriated property.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden , 23 September 1982, § 63, Series A no. 52; and Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 78, ECHR 2010)?

2. In the affirmative, was that interference compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 95-99 and 106-14, 25 October 2012)? In particular:

(a) was it carried out under the conditions provided for by law?

(b) did it pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest?

(c) were the means employed proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy to seek compensation for his property, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?