Communicated on 18 March 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 65124/09 Rusayel MASHINYAN and others against Armenia and 5 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Armenian nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr K. Tumanyan , a lawyer practising in Vanadzor. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1. Background to the case s

In the 1970s a copper-molybdenum deposit ( ‘ Teghout ’ ) was discovered about four and six km away from the villages of Teghout and Shnogh respectively, in the Lori Region .

In 2001 a private company, Armenian Copper Programme CJSC, was granted a mining licence for the exploitation of the Teghout copper ‑ molybdenum deposit for a period of twenty-five years.

On 1 November 2007 the Government adopted Decree no. 1279-N approving the expropriation zones of territories situated within the administrative boundaries of the rural communities of Shnogh and Teghout in the Lori Region to be taken for State needs and changing the category of land use. According to the Decree, Armenian Copper Programme CJSC or Teghout CJSC, founded by the former for the purpose of the implementation of the Teghout copper-molybdenum deposit exploitation project, were to acquire the units of land listed in its annexes. The plot s of land belonging to the applicant s were listed among the units of land falling within these expropriation zones.

2. Proceedings concerning the expropriation of the applicants ’ property

The applicants, a family of five, live in Shnogh village and earn their living from agriculture. They jointly owned a plot of arable land in the village measuring 1.622 ha. The land was used for growing crops for the family and feeding their livestock.

On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicants containing an offer to buy their plot of land for AMD 818,000 (approximately EUR 1,780) plus an additional 15% as required by law, making the final offer AMD 940,700 (approximately EUR 2,045).

The applicants did not reply to the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation.

On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC lodged a claim against the applicants seeking to oblige them to sign the agreement on the taking of their property for State needs. The company based its claim, inter alia , on the evaluation report prepared at its request by Oliver Group LLC, a licensed evaluation company. According to the report the market value of the applicants ’ plot of land was estimate d at AMD 818,000 (approximately EUR 1,780).

In the proceedings before the Lori Regional Court the fourth applicant represented the other applicants and argued that the market value of their land had been underestimated. He requested additional time to be able to submit an alternative evaluation report.

It appears that the applicants were unable to obtain an evaluation of their property by another company. They claim that no other evaluation company was willing to make an independent evaluation of the market value of their land.

In the course of the proceedings Teghout CJSC submitted another evaluation of the applicants ’ property stating that Oliver Group LLC had prepared a corrected report according to which the market value of the property was AMD 900,000 (approximately EUR 1,960). The final amount of compensation, including the additional 15% required by law, would thus be equal to AMD 1,035,000 (approximately EUR 2,250).

On 26 September 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC ’ s claim, awarding the applicants a total of AMD 1,035,000 in compensation.

The applicants lodged an appeal complaining, inter alia , that the market value of their land had been seriously underestimated and that the amount of compensation offered to them was not adequate. They further argued that the fact that Oliver Group LLC had submitted two different evaluation reports in the course of the proceedings raised doubts as to the credibility of its reports, and that the court should have initiated an independent evaluation of their property.

On 29 January 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court ’ s judgment finding, inter alia , that the market value of the property to be taken for State needs had been correctly estimated, based on the evaluation report contained in the case file.

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They argued, inter alia , that the Regional Court, while having such power under the law, had failed to order an independent evaluation of the property. They submitted that they had disagreed with the evaluation report submitted by the other party to the proceedings, which was moreover not an expert opinion and therefore could not be admitted as evidence.

On 24 June 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicants ’ cassation appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.

The applicants, a family of four, live in Shnogh village and earn their living from agriculture and apiculture. They jointly owned two plots of arable land in the village measuring 0.373 ha and 0.448 ha. They also owned a beekeeper ’ s house measuring 69.4 sq.m situated on the second plot of land. The land was used for growing crops for the family, feeding their livestock and beekeeping.

On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicants containing an offer to buy their plots of land. Compensation of AMD 183,000 (approximately EUR 398) and AMD 304,000 (approximately EUR 661) was offered for the two plots of land respectively, plus an additional 15% as required by the law.

The applicants did not reply to the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation. It appears that they tried to obtain an alternative evaluation of their property by another company but did not succeed. They claim that no other evaluation company was willing to make an independent evaluation of the market value of their land.

On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC lodged a claim against the applicants seeking to oblige them to sign the agreement on the taking of their property for State needs. The company based its claim, inter alia , on the evaluation report prepared at its request by Oliver Group LLC, a licensed evaluation company. According to the report the market value of the applicants ’ plots of land was estimated at AMD 183 ,000 (approximately EUR 398) and AMD 304,000 (approximately EUR 661) respectively.

In the proceedings before the Lori Regional Court the applicants argued that the market value of their land had been underestimated. They further submitted that the evaluation of their property had not been carried out correctly, since no account had been taken of the number of trees, the beekeeper ’ s house situated on the second plot of land and a number of other factors that should have affected the calculation of the amount of compensation.

In the course of the proceedings Teghout CJSC submitted new evaluation reports of the applicants ’ property also prepared by Oliver Group LLC. The representative of Teghout CJSC stated that a new evaluation of the applicant ’ s second plot of land had been conducted in order to include the building situated on it. According to the new evaluation report, the market value of the applicants ’ second plot of land including the building was estimated to be AMD 1,728,000 (approximately EUR 3,760). As to the first plot of land, it was stated that Oliver Group LLC had prepared a corrected report according to which the market value of the property was AMD 189,000 (approximately EUR 410). The final amounts of compensation for the two plots of land, including the additional 15% required by the law, would thus be equal to AMD 217,350 (approximately EUR 473) and AMD 1,987,200 (approximately EUR 4,320) respectively.

On 28 November 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC ’ s claim, awarding the applicants compensation of AMD 217,350 for the first plot of land and AMD 1,987,200 for the second plot of land.

The applicants lodged an appeal. Relying, inter alia , on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, they complained that the Regional Court had deprived them of their property.

On 18 June 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court ’ s judgment finding, inter alia , that the latter had struck a fair balance between the applicants ’ interests and the legitimate aim pursued and that the market value of the property had been properly determined, based on the corrected evaluation reports prepared by Oliver Group CJSC.

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law raising similar arguments to those submitted in the previous appeal.

On 12 August 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicants ’ cassation appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.

The applicants, a family of five, live in Shnogh village and earn their living from agriculture. They jointly owned two plots of arable land in the village. The first plot of land measured 0.334 ha and the second one consisted of two distinct parts measuring 0.932 ha and 0.723 ha. The land was used for growing crops for the family and feeding their livestock.

On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicants containing an offer to buy their plots of land. Compensation of AMD 163,000 (approximately EUR 355) and AMD 950,000 (approximately EUR 2,065) was offered for the two plots of land respectively, plus an additional 15% as required by law.

The applicants did not reply to the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation. It appears that they tried to obtain an alternative evaluation of their property by another company but did not succeed. They claim that no other evaluation company was willing to make an independent evaluation of the market value of their land.

On 14 May 2008 Teghout CJSC lodged a claim against the applicants seeking to oblige them to sign the agreement on the taking of their property for State needs. The company based its claim, inter alia , on the evaluation report prepared at its request by Oliver Group LLC, a licensed evaluation company. According to the report, the market value of the applicants ’ plots of land was estimated at AMD 163,000 (approximately EUR 355) and AMD 950,000 (approximately EUR 2,065) respectively.

In the proceedings before the Lori Regional Court the applicants argued that the market value of their land had been underestimated. They further submitted that the evaluation of their property had not been carried out correctly since no account had been taken of the number of trees and their profitability and that they were unable to submit an alternative evaluation of the market value of their land since other companies refused to carry out an evaluation.

In the course of the proceedings Teghout CJSC submitted other evaluation reports of the applicants ’ property stating that, after the institution of the proceedings, Oliver Group LLC had prepared corrected reports according to which the market value of the applicants ’ two plots of land was estimated at AMD 173,000 (approximately EUR 376) and AMD 986,000 (approximately EUR 2,143). The final amount of compensation, including the additional 15% required by law, would thus be equal to AMD 198,950 (approximately EUR 433) for the first plot of land and AMD 1,133,900 (approximately EUR 2,465) for the second.

On 7 November 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC ’ s claim, awarding the applicants compensation of a total of AMD 198,950 for the first plot of land and AMD 1,133,900 for the second plot of land.

The applicants lodged an appeal. Relying, inter alia , on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, they complained that the Regional Court had deprived them of their property.

On 25 March 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court ’ s judgment, finding that the latter had properly determined the market value of the property based on the corrected evaluation reports prepared by Oliver Group CJSC.

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law raising similar arguments to those submitted in the previous appeal.

On 17 June 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicants ’ cassation appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.

The applicant lives in Shnogh village and earns his living from agriculture. He owned a plot of arable land in the village measuring 0.186 ha. The land was used for growing crops for the family, feeding the livestock and beekeeping.

On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicant containing an offer to buy his plot of land. The amount of compensation offered was AMD 134,000 (approximately EUR 290), plus an additional 15% as required by law.

The applicant did not reply to the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation. It appears that the applicant tried to obtain an alternative evaluation of his property by other companies but did not succeed. He claims that no other evaluation company was willing to make an independent evaluation of the market value of his land.

On 13 May 2008 Teghout CJSC lodged a claim against the applicant seeking to oblige him to sign the agreement on taking of his property for State needs. The company based its claim, inter alia , on the evaluation report prepared at its request by Oliver Group LLC, a licensed evaluation company. According to the report the market value of the applicant ’ s plot of land was estimated at AMD 134,000 (approximately EUR 290).

In the proceedings before the Lori Regional Court, the applicant argued that the market value of his land had been underestimated. He further submitted that the evaluation of his property had not been carried out correctly since no account had been taken of the number of fruit trees, their profitability and the existence of a fence and a water pipeline on the territory in question. He also claimed to be unable to submit an alternative evaluation of the real market value of his land since other companies refused to perform an evaluation.

In the course of the proceedings Teghout CJSC submitted another evaluation report of the applicant ’ s property stating that, after the institution of the proceedings, Oliver Group LLC had prepared a corrected report according to which the market value of the applicant ’ s plot of land was estimated at AMD 137,000 (approximately EUR 298). The final amount of compensation, including the additional 15% required by law, would thus be AMD 157,550 (approximately EUR 343).

On 28 November 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC ’ s claim, awarding the applicant a total of AMD 157,550 in compensation.

The applicant lodged an appeal. Relying, inter alia , on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he complained that the Regional Court had deprived him of his property.

On 19 March 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court ’ s judgment, finding that the latter had properly determined the market value of the property based on the corrected evaluation reports prepared by Oliver Group CJSC.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law raising similar arguments to those submitted in the previous appeal.

On 17 June 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant ’ s cassation appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.

The applicant lives in Shnogh village and earns his living from agriculture and bakery production. He owned eight plots of agricultural land in the village measuring 0.420 ha, 0.890 ha, 0.904 ha, 1.206 ha, 0.780 ha, 0.900, 0.974 and 0.354 ha. The land was used for growing crops for the family, gardening, beekeeping and feeding their livestock.

On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicant containing an offer to buy his eight plots of land for AMD 194,000 (approximately EUR 422), AMD 422,000 (approximately EUR 917), AMD 417,000 (approximately EUR 907), AMD 555,000 (approximately EUR 1,207), AMD 328,000 (approximately EUR 713), AMD 426,000 (approximately EUR 990), AMD 409,000 (approximately EUR 890) and AMD 240,000 (approximately EUR 522) respectively, plus an additional 15% on each amount offered as required by law, making the final offer AMD 3,439,650 (approximately EUR 7,478) in total.

The applicant did not reply to the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation. It appears that he tried to obtain an alternative evaluation of his property by other companies but did not succeed. He claims that no other evaluation company was willing to make an independent evaluation of the market value of his land.

On 13 May 2008 Teghout CJSC lodged a claim against the applicant seeking to oblige him to sign the agreement on the taking of his property for State needs. The company based its claim, inter alia , on the evaluation reports prepared at its request by Oliver Group LLC, a licensed evaluation company. According to the reports, the market value of the applicant ’ s plots of land was estimated at 3,439,650 (approximately EUR 7,478) in total.

In the proceedings before the Lori Regional Court the applicant argued that the market value of his land had apparently been underestimated. He further submitted that the evaluation of his property had not been carried out correctly, since no account had been taken of the amounts he had actually paid for the plots of land in question and of the significant investments he had made. He also claimed that his deprivation of property was not in the public interest since it was aimed at securing high profits for several individuals.

In the course of the proceedings, Teghout CJSC submitted other evaluation reports for the applicant ’ s property stating that, after the institution of the proceedings, Oliver Group LLC had prepared corrected reports according to which the market value of the applicant ’ s eight plots of land was estimated at respectively AMD 187,000 (approximately EUR 407), AMD 456,000 (approximately EUR 991), AMD 437,000 (approximately EUR 950), AMD 535,000 (approximately EUR 1,163), AMD 343,000 (approximately EUR 746), AMD 411,000 (approximately EUR 893), AMD 427,000 (approximately EUR 928) and AMD 268,000 (approximately EUR 583). The representative of Teghout CJSC asked the court to take into account the relatively higher amounts of the initial evaluations in respect of those plots of land that were evaluated lower as a result of the new evaluation. The final amounts of compensation would therefore be equal to the amounts mentioned in the corrected reports for those plots of land evaluated higher than previously and would stay the same as in the initial offer for the rest, together with the additional 15% required by law.

On 7 November 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC ’ s claim, awarding the applicant AMD 223,100 (approximately EUR 485), AMD 524,400 (approximately EUR 1,140), AMD 502,550 (approximately EUR 1,093), AMD 638,250 (approximately EUR 1,388), AMD 394,450 (approximately EUR 858), AMD 489,900 (approximately EUR 1,065), AMD 491,050 (approximately EUR 1,068) and AMD 308,200 (approximately EUR 670) respectively in compensation for his eight plots of land.

The applicant lodged an appeal. Relying, inter alia , on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he complained that the Regional Court had deprived him of his property.

On 18 March 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court ’ s judgment finding that the latter had properly determined the market value of the property based on the corrected evaluation reports prepared by Oliver Group CJSC.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law raising similar arguments to those submitted in the previous appeal.

On 18 June 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant ’ s cassation appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.

The applicants, father and son, live in Shnogh village and earn their living from agriculture. They jointly owned six plots of arable land in the village measuring 0.053 ha, 0.448 ha, 0.075 ha, 0.254 ha, 0.212 ha and 0.799 ha. The land was used for growing crops for the family, gardening and feeding their livestock.

On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicants containing an offer to buy their six plots of land for AMD 19,000 (approximately EUR 41), AMD 213,000 (approximately EUR 463), AMD 26,000 (approximately EUR 57), AMD 87,000 (approximately EUR 190), AMD 73,000 (approximately EUR 160) and AMD 339,000 (approximately EUR 737) respectively plus an additional 15% on each amount offered as required by law, making the final offer AMD 870,550 (approximately EUR 1,893) in total.

The applicants did not reply to the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation. It appears that they were unable to obtain an evaluation of their property by another company. They claim that no other evaluation company was willing to make an independent evaluation of the market value of their land.

On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC lodged a claim against the applicants and their late mother, H., seeking to oblige them to sign the agreement on the taking of their property for State needs. The company based its claim, inter alia , on the evaluation reports prepared at its request by Oliver Group LLC, a licensed evaluation company. According to the reports the market value of the applicants ’ six plots of land was estimated at AMD 757,000 (approximately EUR 1,645) in total.

In the proceedings before the Lori Regional Court the second applicant argued that the market value of their land had been underestimated.

In the course of the proceedings Teghout CJSC submitted other evaluation reports of the applicants ’ property stating that Oliver Group LLC had prepared corrected reports according to which the market value of the entire property was AMD 1,038,000 (approximately EUR 2,257). The final amount of compensation, including the additional 15% required by law, would thus be equal to AMD 1,193,700 (approximately EUR 2,595).

On 28 November 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC ’ s claim, awarding H. and the applicants a total of AMD 1,193,700 (approximately EUR 2,595) in compensation.

The applicants lodged an appeal complaining, inter alia , that the first applicant had not been duly notified about the proceedings. They further argued that the Regional Court, being aware of the fact that H. had died in 2007, had delivered a judgment that concerned her rights.

On 3 April 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court ’ s judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.

On 7 October 2009 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC ’ s claim finding, inter alia , that the evaluation reports prepared by Oliver Group LLC should be considered lawful and acceptable evidence to determine the market value of the applicants ’ property to be taken for State needs. The Regional Court stated that the first applicant, as H. ’ s successor, should be awarded her share in the compensation and awarded the applicants a total of AMD 1,193,700 (approximately EUR 2,595) in equal shares as compensation.

The applicants lodged an appeal claiming, inter alia , that the market value of their land had been seriously underestimated and that the amount of compensation offered to them was not adequate. They argued that the Regional Court had accepted the reports submitted by their opponent as established proof of the market value of their property. They argued in particular that, in order to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to present their case, the Regional Court should have exercised its statutory discretion to order an expert examination since such a necessity had arisen in the course of the proceedings and they had no possibility to provide an alternative evaluation themselves.

On 3 February 2010 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court ’ s judgment stating that the applicants had failed to raise their complaints concerning the alleged inadmissibility of evidence at first instance. The Court of Appeal did not address the issue of whether the Regional Court should have exercised its statutory discretion to assign an expert examination to determine the real market value of the applicants ’ property since there was a dispute on this issue.

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They raised similar complaints to those raised before the Court of Appeal.

On 24 March 2010 the Court of Cassation declared the applicants ’ cassation appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. The Constitution of 1995 (following the amendments introduced on 27 November 2005 with effect from 6 December 2005)

According to Article 19, everyone has the right to a public hearing of his case by an independent and impartial court within a reasonable time, in conditions of equality and with respect for all fair trial requirements, in order to have his violated rights restored, as well as the validity of the charge against him determined.

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.

2. The Code of Civil Procedure (in force from 1999)

According to Article 6, civil proceedings shall be adversarial and shall be conducted with respect for equality of arms.

According to Article 53 § 2, the court shall consider no piece of evidence as already established.

According to Article 60 § 1, in order to clarify issues requiring specialised knowledge which arise during the examination of a case, the court can appoint a forensic examination upon application by a party (parties) or of its own motion.

According to Article 60 § 6, the court warns the expert about criminal liability for submission of an obviously false conclusion.

According to Article 61, the participants in the proceedings are entitled to be present at the forensic examination, save in cases where their presence could hinder the regular work of the expert.

3. The Law on Alienation of Property for the needs of Society and the State (in force from 30 December 2006)

According to Article 3 § 1, the constitutional basis for alienation of property for the needs of society and the State is the prevailing public interest.

According to Article 3 § 2, the constitutional requirements for alienation of property for the needs of society and the State are the following:

a) alienation must be carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by the law,

b) prior adequate compensation should be provided for property subject to alienation.

According to Article 4 § 1, the public interest must prevail over the interests of the owner of property subject to alienation , and alienation of that property must be essential to implementation.

According to Article 4 § 2, the prevailing public interest may pursue, inter alia , the implementation of mining projects having important State or community significance. The aim of securing additional income for the State or community budget is not by itself a prevailing public interest.

According to Article 11 § 1, adequate compensation should be paid to the owner of property subject to alienation. The market value of the property plus an additional 15% is considered to be an adequate amount of compensation.

According to Article 11 § 3 the determination of the market value of real estate and property rights in respect of real estate is carried out in accordance with the procedure set out by the Law on Real Estate Evaluation Activity.

4. The Law on Real Estate Evaluation Activity (as in force at the material time)

According to Article 8, evaluation is obligatory in case of alienation of immovable property for State or community needs.

According to Article 15 § 1 (1), persons engaged in real estate evaluation have the right to use independent methods of real estate evaluation in compliance with the evaluation standard.

5. Government Decree No. 1279-N of 1 November 2007 approving the expropriation zones of certain territories situated within the administrative boundaries of the rural communities of Shnogh and Teghout in the Lori Region to be taken for State needs and changing the category of land use ( ՀՀ Կառավարության 2007 թ . ն ոյեմբերի 1- ի թիվ 1279- Ն որոշումը Հայաստանի Հանրապետության Լոռու մարզի Շնողի և Թեղուտի գյուղական համայնքների վարչական սահմաններում որոշ տարածքներում բացառիկ՝ գերակա հանրային շահ ճանաչելու և հողերի նպատակային նշանակությունը փոփոխելու մասին )

For the purpose of the implementation of the Teghout copper ‑ molybdenum deposit exploitation project, and in the perspective of building and operating a mining plant, the Government decided to approve the expropriation zones of agricultural land situated within the administrative boundaries of the rural communities of Shnogh and Teghout in the Lori Region to be taken for State needs, with a total area of 81. 483 ha. According to the Decree, the public interest in the development of the economy and infrastructure and the interest in higher levels of production and export prevailed over the private interests of the proprietors.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their right to a fair trial was not respected since the courts regarded the evaluation report submitted by their opponent as established proof of the market value of their property and they had no opportunity to challenge it effectively. In particular, they argue that the courts failed to exercise their statutory discretion to appoint a forensic examination to determine the real market value of the property , given that the applicants had not participated in the evaluation process and had been unable to submit their objections.

2. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the deprivation of their property did not satisfy the requirement of lawfulness, did not pursue any public interest and that the amount of compensation awarded was inadequate. In particular, they complain that the law is not sufficiently foreseeable in that it does not specify the criteria for determining the market value of property to be taken for State needs.

QUESTIONS to the parties

1. Was the right to a fair trial , guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention , respected in the applicants ’ case? In particular, were the applicants afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case – including evidence – under conditio ns that did not place them at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis their opponent? T he Government are further requested to specify whether t he applicants in applications nos. 4168/10, 4178/10, 4413/10, 6818/10 exhaust ed the domestic remedies available to them in respect of t heir complaints under Article 6.

2. Was the deprivation of the applicants ’ property compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular:

a) was the deprivation of their property carried out under the conditions provided for by law? In particular, is the Law on Alienation of Property for the Needs of Society and the State sufficiently precise and foreseeable as regards the evaluation of property in case of expropriation?

b) did the deprivation of their property strike a ‘ fair balance ’ between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual ’ s fundamental rights? In particular:

i. w ere the means employed proportionate to the aim sough t to be achieved?

ii. d id the applicants bear an ‘ individual and excessive burden ’ due to the manner in which the amount of compensation was determined, given that the sole basis for the assessment of the amount of compensation by the courts was the property evaluation report by the evaluation company Oliver Group LLC?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Represented by

65124/09

02/12/2009

Rusayel MASHINYAN

Zhenik MASHINYAN

Shnogh

Shakar MASHINYAN

Shnogh

Varazdat MASHINYAN

Shnogh

Liana RAMAZYAN

Shnogh

Karen TUMANYAN

4168/10

11/01/2010

Levon ALIKHANYAN

Rima MELIKSETYAN

Shnogh Village

Artsrun ALIKHANYAN

Shnogh Village

Ashot ALIKHANYAN

Shnogh Village

Karen TUMANYAN

4178/10

15/12/2009

Vardan VARDANYAN

Marine HAKHVERDYAN

Shnogh Village

Vahe VARDANYAN

Shnogh Village

Armine VARDANYAN

Shnogh Village

Ani VARDANYAN

Shnogh Village

Karen TUMANYAN

4413/10

15/12/2009

Mher ALIKHANYAN

Karen TUMANYAN

6818/10

15/12/2009

Levon ALIKHANYAN

Karen TUMANYAN

54769/10

14/09/2010

Zhora RAMAZYAN

20/11/1939

Arkadi RAMAZYAN

04/03/1976

Shnogh Village

Karen TUMANYAN