Communicated on 15 November 2016

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 60456/12 Davit MANUKYAN against Armenia lodged on 12 September 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Davit Manukyan , is an Armenian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Yerevan.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On the basis of a sale/purchase contract concluded on 13 August 1993 the applicant acquired ownership rights in respect of a house, and a plot of land on which it was situated, in Yerevan.

On 19 August 1993 an ownership certificate was issued, which established that the plot of land measured 1000 sq. m. and provided also a plan of the land.

On 22 May 1998 a new ownership certificate was issued by the local branch of the State Real Estate Registry (hereinafter “the SRER”) where the measurements of the plot of land were indicated as 0.1 of a hectare (equal to 1000 sq. m.) and a plan was provided.

On 1 June 2007, by the decision of the Mayor of Yerevan, an unauthorised construction, built on a state-owned plot of land by the applicant ’ s neighbours A. and A.H. (hereinafter “the neighbours ”), was recognised as a State property.

On 3 October 2007, by another decision of the Mayor of Yerevan, the construction was acknowledged as lawful and, together with the attached plot of land measuring 150.46 sq. m., was alienated to the neighbours through a direct sale contract. On the basis of this decision a sale contract was concluded between the latter and Yerevan Municipality, and a corresponding ownership certificate was issued.

According to the expert opinion provided on the basis of a construction and technical expert examination, which was commissioned by the applicant and carried out between 28 March and 3 April 2008, the surface area of the applicant ’ s plot of hand, as indicated in the plan on the ownership certificate of 22 May 1998, constituted 847.6 sq. m. instead of 1000 sq. m. Furthermore, this plan did not correspond to the one drawn up in the ownership certificate of 19 August 1993, according to which the applicant ’ s plot of land overlapped with part of the plot of land (125.6 sq. m.) sold to the neighbours upon the Yerevan Mayor ’ s decision of 3 October 2007.

On an unspecified date the applicant instituted administrative proceedings against the Yerevan Municipality and, as third parties, the Ministry of Finance, the SRER and the neighbours. He contested, inter alia, both decisions of the Mayor of Yerevan and, as a consequence, requested that the sale/purchase contract concluded with the neighbours and the state registration regarding the overlapping 125.6 sq. m. plot of land be declared invalid.

On 19 August 2011 the Administrative Court partially granted the applicant ’ s claim. It found that the sale of the plot of land authorised by the Mayor ’ s decision of 3 October 2007 breached the applicant ’ s ownership rights and, in its part concerning the overlapping part of the plot, it was declared invalid. As to the Mayor ’ s decision of 1 June 2007, this decision did not concern the applicant ’ s rights since it only acknowledged State ownership over the unauthorised construction.

At the applicant ’ s request, on 17 October 2011 the Administrative Court delivered an additional judgment declaring invalid also the sale/purchase contract concluded with the neighbours and the state registration in the parts concerning the overlapping part of the plot of land.

The Mayor of Yerevan, the Ministry of Finance and the neighbours lodged appeals against these judgments. The applicant submitted a reply objecting to the appeals.

On 10 January 2012 the Administrative Court of Appeal quashed both judgments and dismissed the applicant ’ s claim in full. In doing so it concluded that, despite the measurements and plans indicated in the applicant ’ s and his predecessor ’ s ownership certificates, in fact the previous owner had acquired ownership rights only over an 842 sq. m. part of the plot of land in question, which was enclosed by a wall. Consequently, in 1993 the applicant had obtained only that part of the plot. As regards the new ownership certificate of 22 May 1998, it corrected the inconsistency concerning the plan, establishing the real measurements of the plot of land within the wall, but mistakenly indicated the surface area mentioned in the previous certificates.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.

On 21 March 2012 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. The Constitution of Armenia (adopted on 5 July 1995, as in force at the material time)

Article 28 provided that everyone has the right to property and the right to bequeath. A person can be deprived of his or her property only by a court in cases prescribed by law. Property can be expropriated for the needs of society and the State only in exceptional cases of paramount public interest, on the basis of a law and with prior equivalent compensation.

2. The Constitution of 1995 (following the amendments introduced on 27 November 2005 with effect from 6 December 2005, as in force at the material time )

According to Article 31, everyone shall have the right to dispose of, use, manage and bequeath his property in the way he sees fit. No one can be deprived of his property, save by a court in cases prescribed by law. Property can be expropriated for the needs of society and the State only in exceptional cases of paramount public interest, in a procedure prescribed by law and with prior equivalent compensation.

3. The Civil Code (in force from 1 January 1999)

According to clause 1 of Article 135, the right of ownership and other property rights in respect of immovable property, limitations on these rights, as well as their arising, transfer and termination are subject to state registration.

4. The Land Code (in force from 15 March 1991 to 15 June 2001)

Article 18 set out that ownership rights and the right of use over land shall be asserted by the relevant state act, issued by the executive committee of the respective local council of deputies.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the deprivation of his property did not satisfy the requirement of lawfulness, it did not pursue any legitimate aim and he was not provided with any compensation .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was the interference with the applicant ’ s “possessions” compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, was it “lawful” for the purpose of this Article, did it pursue a legitimate aim in the general interest and did it strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant ’ s rights guaranteed by this Article?