Decided on 13 November 2014
Relevant Articles: Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of the Kentron District of Yerevan to be taken for State needs for town-planning purposes. On 15 March 2005 the first applicant lodged an appeal. The remaining three applicants (family living in the apartment) allege that they unsuccessfully sought to be recognised as parties to the proceedings, despite the fact that they enjoyed a right of use in respect of the flat in question and the fact that their eviction was ordered by the District Court.
The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention that the deprivation of their flat had not been prescribed by law. The Court considers that their complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
The Court reiterates that the first and most important requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be lawful: the second sentence of the first paragraph authorises deprivation of possessions only “subject to the conditions provided for by law” and the second paragraph recognises that States have the right to control the use of property by enforcing “laws”. Moreover, the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, is inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (see Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 79, ECHR 2000-XII). The Court further reiterates that the phrase “subject to the conditions provided for by law” requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, § 110, Series A no. 102).
The second, third and fourth applicants complained that they had not been made party to the expropriation proceedings and that they had been unlawfully evicted from their home. They invoked Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provide: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing” (article 6). “Everyone has the right to respect for his ... home... (article 8). There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
For these reasons, the court, unanimously, holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The court hold that it is not necessary to rule separately on the second, third and fourth applicants’ communicated complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, and declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Read the case 23566/05
