CASE OF MINASYAN AND SEMERJYAN v. ARMENIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MINASYAN AND SEMERJYAN v. ARMENIA

(Application no. 27651/05)

JUDGMENT

(merits)

STRASBOURG

23 June 2009

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Minasyan and Semerjyan v. Armenia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,

Elisabet Fura-Sandström,

Boštjan M. Zupančič,

Alvina Gyulumyan,

Ineta Ziemele,

Luis López Guerra,

Ann Power, judges,

and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2009,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 27651/05) 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") by two Armenian nationals, Ms Nelli Minasyan ("the first applicant") and Ms Yelena Semerjyan ("the second applicant"), on 1 July 2005.

2. The first and the second applicants (jointly, "the applicants") were represented by Ms L. Grigoryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. The Armenian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia at the European Court of Human Rights.

3. On 2 July 2007 the President of the Third Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4. The first and the second applicants, who are mother and daughter, were born in 1960 and 1990 respectively and live in Los Angeles, USA.

5. The first applicant was the owner of a 26 sq. m. flat in an apartment building situated at 9 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The flat was acquired by the first applicant on 30 May 1995. The building in question was situated on a plot of land owned by the State.

6. The applicants alleged that the second applicant enjoyed a right of use in respect of the above flat as the first applicant's family member residing in it.

7. The Government contested this allegation and claimed that the second applicant did not enjoy the right of use in respect of the first applicant's flat and simply had the right to live in it.

8. On 5 October 2001 the Government adopted Decree no. 950, approving the procedure for taking plots of lands and immov...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here