THIRD SECTION

Application no. 75651/11 Robert NIKOGHOSYAN against Armenia lodged on 3 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Robert Nikoghosyan , is an Armenian national, who was born in 1953 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.

The applicant is a former employee of a State Revenue Committee (hereinafter “the Committee”).

By an order of the Head of the Committee of 27 February 2009 the applicant was dismissed from his job.

On 20 March 2009 the applicant brought an action against the Committee requesting reinstatement in his job and payment for forced absence up to the day of reinstatement.

On 11 August 2009 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan found for the applicant. It decided, in particular, to declare void the order of 27 February 2009. Moreover, it ordered the applicant ’ s reinstatement in his previous position and awarded him compensation for lost earnings.

The Committee appealed against the District Court ’ s judgment. By its decision of 7 October 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal left the District Court ’ s judgment unchanged.

The Committee lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of 7 October 2009.

On 9 December 2009 the Court of Cassation decided to return the appeal so the judgment of 11 August 2009 became final.

On 27 January 2010 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan issued a writ of execution of its judgment of 11 August 2009.

On 5 February 2010 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings. On the same date he decided to oblige the Committee to comply with the requirements of the writ within two weeks.

On 20 April 2010 the applicant was paid 937,114 Armenian drams (AMD) for his forced absence calculated from 27 February 2009 until 9 December 2009, the date on which the judgment in the applicant ’ s favour became final.

The applicant addressed several letters to the Committee and to different officials complaining that no measures had been taken to enforce the final judgment of 11 August 2009 and requesting that the Committee be compelled to comply with that judgment.

On 18 July 2011 the bailiff decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings on the ground that it was impossible to enforce the judgment of 11 August 2009. In particular, the applicant could not be reinstated because his previous position was no longer vacant.

On 25 July 2011 the applicant contested this decision before the courts.

On 5 December 2011 the Administrative Court found in favour of the applicant and cancelled the bailiff ’ s decision of 18 July 2011.

On 20 January 2012 the bailiff decided to reopen the enforcement proceedings.

On 26 April 2012 the bailiff decided again to terminate the enforcement proceedings on the ground that it was impossible to enforce the judgment of 11 August 2009, since the structural unit of the Committee, where the applicant had been working, had ceased to exist by virtue of the Governmental decree of 15 December 2011.

On 7 May 2012 the applicant contested this decision before the courts. He alleged, in particular, that the judgment of 11 August 2009 had not been enforced since firstly, he had not been awarded the full sum for his forced absence and secondly, he had not been reinstated in his previous position.

By its judgment of 16 October 2012 the Administrative Court decided to grant the applicant ’ s claim in respect of the payments for his forced absence stating that the period should be calculated up to 15 December 2011, the day on which that particular unit of the Committee had ceased to exist. As to the applicant ’ s second claim, the Court stated that the bailiff ’ s decision in this part was lawful since the applicant ’ s reinstatement had been impossible.

On 9 November 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court.

On 21 February 2013 the Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s claim.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of 21 February 2013.

On 27 March 2013 the Court of Cassation decided to return the appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. Code of Civil Procedure

According to Section 14, a judicial act which has come into effect is mandatory for all state bodies, local self-government bodies, their officials, legal entities and citizens and is subject to execution throughout the territory of the Republic of Armenia.

2. Law on compulsory enforcement of judicial acts

According to Section 71, decisions taken by compulsory enforcement officers within the scope of their competences shall be binding on all state bodies, local self-government bodies, officials, organisations and citizens and shall be subject to execution throughout the territory of the Republic of Armenia.

COMPLAINT

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains about the non ‑ enforcement of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court ’ s judgment of 11 August 2009.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

Was the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court ’ s judgment of 11 August 2009 fully enforced? If not, was the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant ’ s favour compatible with his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?