Communicated on 23 September 2020 Published on 12 October 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 23705/15 Laura ARSHAKYAN and Others against Armenia lodged on 5 May 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the expropriation of a house in respect of which the applicants claim to have enjoyed a right of use entitling them to compensation and a financial incentive in case of its expropriation which, they submit, was not paid. Their claim seeking compensation in that respect lodged with the domestic courts was not examined on the merits on the grounds that the three-year statutory limitation period set forth in Article 332 of the Civil Code had not been respected. The applicants complain that the courts did not correctly apply the statutory limitation period in their case. In particular, they allege that the starting point for its calculation had not been foreseeable and thus constituted a breach of their right of access to a court. Lastly, the applicants complain of the excessive length of the civil proceedings, which commenced on 1 July 2008 and ended on 22 October 2014. They rely on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the statutory limitation period – as determined and applied in the present case – restrict the applicants ’ right to a court in a manner compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland , nos. 52067/10 and 41072/11, §§ 70-73, 11 March 2014; Stagno v. Belgium , no. 1062/07, §§ 26-35, 7 July 2009; and Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain , n os. 38366/97 and 9 others, ECHR 2000 ‑ I)?

2. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Fil LLC v. Armenia , no. 18526/13, §§ 52-58, 31 January 2019)?

3. Did the applicants have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Minasyan and Semerjyan v. Armenia , no. 27651/05) §§ 52-56, 23 June 2009)?

In the affirmative, has there been an interference with the applicants ’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions? If so, was that interference compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 110-113, 25 October 2012)?