Your trusted source

The European Court of Human Rights issued a decision on the case “Vardanyan and Nanushyan v. Armenia”, which recognizes that the Republic of Armenia has violated the principle of legal certainty and equality of arms, lack of a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal and deprivation of property.  

The applicants Yuri Vardanyan, Artashes Vardanyan and Shushanik Nanushyan are former inhabitants of a house situated at Byuzand Street who were deprived of their plot “in the scope of alienation of private property for public purposes”.
The residents specifically received a compensation for the alienation of the house at 54 ml. AMD, while market value of the plot of land was AMD 276 ml.

Exhausting the local remedies, the applicants, represented by lawyer V. Grigoryan, appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants argued that they were arbitrarily deprived of their plot of land and house, and were denied a fair trial in the ensuing civil proceedings. In particular, they complained that the domestic courts had violated the principle of the finality of judgments; the judge presiding over the hearings before the Court of Cassation in the proceedings concerning the land had not been impartial, as he had tried to compel Yuri Vardanyan to sign a settlement agreement; and that the Court of Appeal had held a hearing in Yuri Vardanyan’s absence.

In its today’s ruling ECHR has declared that the complaints concerning the breach of the principle of legal certainty and equality of arms, lack of a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal and deprivation of property are admissible. Apart from that the Court ruled the there has been a violation of Articles 1 (Right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions), Article 8 (Right to respect for s private and family life, his home and his correspondence) and 41 (Right to just satisfaction).

The Court has 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 Convention, 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.

To note, in its verdict the European Court has given an assessment to the current chairman of the Armenian Court of Cessation Arman Mkrtumyan, referred as Judge M. “Judge M.’s conduct, lacking in the necessary detachment demanded by the principle of judicial neutrality, raised an objectively justified fear that he lacked impartiality when deciding the applicant’s case within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention,” reads the ruling.

Lawyer Yervand Varodyan, member of Armenian Chamber of Advocates has issued a statement regarding the Court ruling. The statements reads that apart from the ruling against Armenia, the European Court has for the first time gave assessment to the actions of an Armenian judge.

“This appears to be a rare decision, when the European Court in its ruling gave an assessment to the actions of the Armenian judge actions, through recalling his statements during the court hearings and his actions which among other things was a reason for the ruling against Armenia”.

“This is the first ever case in the history of the European Court when the actions of the high judicial official is assessed in terms of the violations of impartiality principle,” the lawyer stated.