On 25 July the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered Armenia to pay 1.6 million euros in compensation to Yuri Vartanyan whose house and land had been expropriated during a controversial redevelopment of downtown Yerevan, reported the Armenian Radio Free Europe.

Vartanyan and his family used to own a house and a plot of land in the Kenton district in the city center which was slated for demolition in 2002 as part of redevelopment projects initiated by the former President Robert Kocharyan. In 2004 the government decided to hire a private company for the construction of one of the sections of Byuzand Street (where Vartanyan’s house was), Vizkon Ltd. was authorised to negotiate directly with the owners regarding the property subject to expropriation and, should such negotiations fail, to institute court proceedings on behalf of the state seeking forcible expropriation of the property. Vizkon reached an agreement with Tosp Ltd., a valuation agency, to carry out a valuation of immovable property. The estimated market value of the 1,400 square-meter property was $700,000 according to Tosp.

A few months later, Yerevan’s municipal administration and Vizkon challenged Vartanyan’s ownership rights in court, saying that they had never been recognized by any judicial act. The claim was accepted by a district court but rejected by Armenia’s Court of Appeals. According to ECHR documents, the municipality and Vizkon expressed readiness to settle the case when it reached the Higher Court of Cassation in 2006. They offered to give Vartanyan $390,000 in cash as well as a 160- square-meter apartment and 40 square-meter office premises in the city center.

Vartanyan rejected the proposed settlement, drawing a stern rebuke from Arman Mkrtumyan, the then chairman of the Court of Cassation who presided over the hearings on the case. A court panel consisting of Mkrtumyan and two other judges subsequently ruled against Vartanyan. The latter appealed to the ECHR in 2007.

The ECHR ruled that this constituted a breach of the principle of legal certainty and equality of arms, a lack of a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal and an deprivation of property. It also noted that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights as far as the principles of legal certainty, impartiality and equality of arms are concerned.

“I consider the ruling fair because we have finally won morally,” said Vartanyan’s wife, Shushanik Nanushyan, but added that she was not satisfied with the size of the financial compensation set by the ECHR, claiming that it constitutes only a fraction of the real market value of the property lost by her family.

The sum due to be paid to Vartanyan exceeds the total amount of damages awarded to all other Armenian plaintiffs by the ECHR since 2007 combined. The latter include nine other Yerevan residents who had lost their properties under similar circumstances. According to Armenia’s representative to the Strasbourg court, Yeghishe Kirakosyan, ECHR verdicts have obligated Yerevan to pay them a total of 324,581 euros in damages.