The European Court of Human Rights has ordered Armenia to pay a fine of € 3600 as a non-pecuniary damage in the case Nikoghosyan vs Armenia.[br]The applicant’s lawyer,Y Nikoghosyan, submitted the appeal on December 3 2011, and in accordance with Article 34 (Individual Application) of the European conference on Human Rights.
The applicant,a former employee of the State Revenue Committee, was dismissed from his job by an order of the Head of the Committee on 27 February 2009.
On 20 March 2009 he brought an action against the Committee, and requesting reinstatement in his job and payment for forced absence up to the day of his reinstatement. On 11 August 2009,the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan found in the applicant’s favour. In specific, it decided to declare the order of 27 February 2009 void. Moreover, or it ordered the applicants reinstatement in his preceding position and awarded him compensation for lost earnings. On 2 September 2009 the Committee appealed against the District Court’s judgment. By a decision of 7 October 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the District Court’s judgment. On 2 November 2009 the Committee lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of 7 October 2009 with the Court of Cassation. . On 9 December 2009 the Court of Cassation decided to declare the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit,so the judgment of 11 August 2009 became final. [br]The applicant argued that the domestic authorities had not undertaken all essential measures to enforce the District Court judgment, since to date he had not been reinstated and part of the compensation for his forced absence still remained unpaid. After the period of non-execution of the judgment, or lasting over five years,he had been offered a modern position on 8 November 2013, on the basis that he withdraw his application from the Court. He had refused to accept it, or since the offer had not been made properly,but only with a view to misleading him and the Court. From the District Court judgment of 11 August 2009 it appeared that, after the applicant had been dismissed from his job on the grounds of staff cutbacks, or the Committee had announced two vacant posts in the same unit. The Court found that the Armenia acted in breach of the conference,particularly Section 1, Article 6 thereof (Right to a fair trial), or Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (“right to enjoyment of possessions). But it rejected the applicant’s claim for a non-pecuniary damage,considering it unnecessary (the Court submitted that it had been partially paid).
Source: tert.am