European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF KIRAKOSYAN v. ARMENIA

(Application no. 50609/10)

JUDGMENT
(Just satisfaction)

STRASBOURG

17 January 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kirakosyan v. Armenia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Tim Eicke, President,
          Faris Vehabović,
          Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 6 December 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 50609/10) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 23 August 2010 by an Armenian national, Ms Emma Kirakosyan (“the applicant”).

2.  In a judgment delivered on 22 June 2021 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to implement a final judgment ordering the demolition of an unauthorised construction hindering the applicant’s property (Kirakosyan v. Armenia [CTE], no. 50609/10, 22 June 2021).

3.  Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction of 7,670 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the decrease in the market value of her property because of the incomplete demolition of the unauthorised construction at issue. She also sought EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,702 for costs and expenses (see §§ 73, 76 and 79 of the principal judgment).

4.  The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,600 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 422 for costs and expenses (ibid., §§ 78 and 83, and point 6 of the operative provisions). Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within six months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 75, and point 5 of the operative provisions).

5.  The applicant and the Government each filed observations.

THE LAW

6.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

7.  In her initial submissions of 21 December 2021 the applicant maintained her initial claims in respect of pecuniary damage (see paragraph 3 above). In support of her claims she similarly relied on a letter from a real estate evaluator dated 29 March 2007 according to which the market value of her property had decreased by 25-30% because of the presence of the unauthorised construction and a real estate valuation report dated 4 August 2016 according to which the market value of her property was 14,828,000 Armenian Drams (approximately EUR 28,000 at the relevant time).

8.  The Government submitted that an issue of pecuniary damage no longer arose since, as a result of the enforcement measures undertaken on 21 December 2021, the relevant unauthorised construction had been completely demolished, as it had been required by the final judgment in the applicant’s favour (see § 8 of the principal judgment). They maintained their position in their further submissions filed on 9 March 2022.

9.  The applicant argued in her further submissions that, contrary to the Government’s claim, the unauthorised construction in question had still not been fully dismantled. She submitted that, in any event, she had suffered pecuniary loss during the lengthy period of the non-enforcement of the relevant judgment and insisted on her pecuniary claims.

10.  The Court notes that the applicant has not submitted any recent evidence with regard to the alleged negative impact of the relevant unauthorised constructions on the market value of her property. In particular, the letter of a real estate evaluator, which had already been submitted by the applicant before, dates from 2007 (see paragraph 7 above).

11.  Furthermore, it appears from the evidence produced before the Court after the adoption of the principal judgment, that certain enforcement measures were undertaken on 21 December 2021 which, as the Government claimed, constituted full enforcement of the relevant domestic judgment (see paragraph 8 above).

12.  The applicant, who argued that the unauthorised constructions in question had still not been fully dismantled as a result of the enforcement measures of 21 December 2021, claimed that she was entitled to compensation for the pecuniary loss that she had suffered during the years of the continued non-enforcement of the relevant domestic judgment which had resulted in the decrease of the market value of her property (see paragraph 9 above). However, she failed to produce evidence which would enable the Court to assess the actual amount of the damage she claims to have suffered.

13.  While the Court accepts that the applicant could have sustained certain pecuniary loss as she claimed, in the absence of relevant evidence, it finds that she has not sufficiently substantiated her claim in respect of pecuniary damage. The Court therefore rejects this claim.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Dismisses the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

             Ilse Freiwirth                                                        Tim Eicke
          Deputy Registrar                                                      President