003-5935546-7584135

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 377 (2017) 06.12.2017 Two forthcoming Grand Chamber judgments on the question of just satisfaction in cases concerning complaints by refugees displaced during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict The European Court of Human Rights will be delivering in writing two Grand Chamber judgments1 in the cases of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (application no. 13216/05) and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (application no. 40167/06) on 12 December 2017 at 11 a.m.. The first case concerns the complaints by six Azerbaijani refugees that they were unable to return to their homes and property in the district of Lachin, in Azerbaijan, from where they had been forced to flee in 1992 during the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. The second case concerns an Armenian refugee who had been forced to flee from his home in the Azerbaijani region of Shahumyan in 1992 during the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, and has since been denied the right to return to his village and to have access to and use his property there. In both cases the Court delivered its judgments on the merits on 16 June 2015. As the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it. The Court will examine this question in its judgments of 12 December 2017. Principal facts and complaints In the case of Chiragov and Others the Court delivered its judgment on 16 June 2015. It held that there had been continuing violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 8 (right to respect for home and private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. With respect to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court concluded that, as concerned the period from 26 April 2002 � the date on which Armenia had ratified the Convention � no aim had been indicated which could justify the denial of access of the applicants to their property without compensation. The Court found the Republic of Armenia responsible for the breaches of the applicants' rights. In the case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan the Court also delivered its judgment on 16 June 2015. It dismissed the Government's preliminary objections and held that there had been a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and of Article 8 (right to respect for home and private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it accepted that throughout the period under scrutiny, that is, from 15 April 2002 � the date on which Azerbaijan had ratified the Convention � refusing civilians, including the applicant, access to the village was justified by safety considerations given that it was an area of military activity. However, the fact that the respondent State had not taken any measures in order to restore his property rights or to provide him with compensation for loss of enjoyment had placed an excessive burden on him. In both cases, as the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it. It invited the parties to submit in writing their observations on the question and to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach. 1. Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). All final judgments are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), Mr Chiragov and the other applicants sought just satisfaction amounting to several million euros in respect of damage sustained and of costs and expenses. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), Mr Sargsyan sought just satisfaction for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage he claimed to have sustained as a result of the violations found by the Court and reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred before it. Procedure The application Chiragov and Others v. Armenia was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 April 2005. On 9 March 2010 the Chamber to which the case had been assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber2. The Azerbaijani Government were given leave to intervene as a third party. A first Grand Chamber hearing was held on 15 September 2010. In a decision of 14 December 2011, the Court declared the applications admissible. A second hearing was held on 22 January 2014. The Grand Chamber delivered its judgment on the merits on 16 June 2015. The application Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 August 2006. On 11 March 2010 the Chamber to which the case had been assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber3. The Armenian Government were given leave to intervene as a third party. A first Grand Chamber hearing was held on 15 September 2010. In a decision of 14 December 2011, the Court declared the application partly admissible. A second Grand Chamber hearing on the merits of the case was held on 5 February 2014. The Grand Chamber delivered its judgment on the merits on 16 June 2015. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHRpress. Press contacts [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30) Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 2 and 3 Under Article 30 of the European Convention on Human Rights, "Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects". 2