19186/20

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF CHILINGARYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 19186/20)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 January 2025     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Chilingaryan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Sârcu, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application against Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 April 2020. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mr Alumyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. 3.  The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decision. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 6.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in her favour. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 7.  The Government argued that the application was inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded and failure to exhaust the domestic remedies. Having examined the Government’s arguments and supporting evidence, the Court does not see sufficient grounds to accept their objections, which must be therefore rejected. 8.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 9.  In the leading cases of Khachatryan v. Armenia (no. 31761/04, 1 December 2009) and Nikoghosyan v. Armenia ([Committee], no. 75651/11, 18 May 2017), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decision in the applicant’s favour. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Khachatryan, cited above, and Nikoghosyan, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 13.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour which remains enforceable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic decision; Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decision referred to in the appended table; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu  Acting Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Relevant domestic decision to be enforced Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Domestic order Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2] 19186/20 20/04/2020 Nelli CHILINGARYAN   Alumyan Hayk Yerevan Administrative Court, 29/06/2017   21/11/2018   pending More than 5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 9 day(s)   The applicant was eligible to apply for a flat in compensation of her demolished property under a relevant government decree. Since all the domestic authorities, to which the applicant applied, refused to act on her request to be provided with a flat, citing lack of competence, the applicant instituted proceedings seeking to oblige the Government to forward her request to the competent authority. The Administrative Court, in its judgment of 29 June 2017, identified the Yerevan Mayor’s Office as the authority competent to deal with the applicant’s request and ordered the Government to forward her request to that authority. This judgment was upheld on appeal by the Administrative Court of Appeal, which also held that the applicant had a “legitimate expectation” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In spite of the judgment of the Administrative Court, which entered into force, the Yerevan Mayor’s Office yet again claimed lack of competence and refused to act on the applicant’s request after it was forwarded to it for consideration. 3,600   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.