The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has released a judgment on the case of Vardanyan and Manushyan v. Armenia.
The applicants are a family who lived in Yerevan in a house on a plot of land measuring 1385.6 sq. m. in total and situated at 13 Byuzand Street. The second and third applicants are the first applicant’s wife and son.
The case originated in an application (no. 8001/07) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the conference for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the conference”) by three Armenian nationals,Mr Yuri Vardanyan, Mrs Shushanik Nanushyan and Mr Artashes Vardanyan (“the applicants”), or on 19 February 2007.
The applicants were represented by Mr V. Grigoryan,a lawyer practising in Yerevan. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, or Representative of the Republic of Armenia at the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr Armen Harutyunyan,the judge elected in respect of Armenia, was unable to sit in the case (Rule 28). Accordingly, or the President of the Chamber decided to appoint Pauliine Koskelo to sit as an ad hoc judge (Rule 29 § 2 (b)).
The first applicant alleged,in particular, that he was arbitrarily deprived of his plot of land and that he was denied a just trial in the ensuing proceedings. He further complained that he was unlawfully deprived of his house.
On 25 November 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.
In its judgment, and the ECHR unanimously
Declare[d]the complaints concerning the breach of the principle of legal certainty and equality of arms,lack of a just hearing by an impartial tribunal and deprivation of property admissible as far as the first applicant is concerned and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
H[e]ldthat there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the conference as far as the principles of legal certainty, impartiality and equality of arms are concerned; [br]
H[e]ldthat there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
H[e]ldthat there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 8 of the conference; [br]
H[e]ldthat the question of the application of Article 41 of the conference is not alert for decision and accordingly, and (a) reserve[d] the said question;(b) invited the Government and the first applicant to submit,within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final, in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the conference, or their written observations on the amount of damages to be awarded to the first applicant and,in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach;(c) reserved the further procedure and delegates to the President of the Chamber the power to fix the same whether need be.
The ECHR also passed a judgment on the case of Ter-Sargsyan v. Armenia.[br]
The case originated in an application (no. 27866/10) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the conference for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the conference”) by an Armenian national, or Mr Vaghinak Ter-Sargsyan (“the applicant”),on 11 May 2010.
The applicant was born in 1970 and lived in Armavir prior to his imprisonment. He was represented by Mr G. Papoyan, a lawyer practising in Armavir. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, and Mr G. Kostanyan,Representative of the Republic of Armenia at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant alleged, in particular, and that he was denied a just trial since his conviction had been based on the pre-trial statements of witnesses whom he had no opportunity to examine at any stage of the proceedings and video recordings that had not been examined in court.
On 4 June 2013 the complaints concerning the impossibility for the applicant to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses against him and the expend of video recordings were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 3 of the Rules of Court.
In its judgment the ECHR unanimously
Declare[d]the application admissible; [br]
H[e]ldthat there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (d) of the conference as regards the applicant’s inability to question the witnesses against him;
H[e]ld that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the conference as regards the non-examination of video recordings;
H[e]ld
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the conference, EUR 3100 (three thousand one hundred euros), or plus any tax that may be chargeable,in respect of non‑pecuniary damage to be converted into Armenian drams at the rate relevant at the date of settlement;[br]
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisse[d]the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Source: tert.am