CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 December 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 34706/18 Vardan TEYMURAZYAN against Armenia lodged on 17 July 2018 communicated on 23 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 8 October 2002 the Kentron and Nork Marash District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) allowed the applicant’s claim to be allocated a plot of land by the Yerevan Municipality (“the Municipality”) for installing a garage. This judgment became final and on 8 November 2002 the District Court issued a writ of execution. However, only in 2022 did the authorities take some steps to comply with the said judgment. In particular, following a decision of the Mayor of Yerevan, on 18 May 2022 a land development contract (“կառուցապատման պայմանագիր”) was concluded with the applicant, under which the latter was provided with the right to land development until 31 December 2022 in order to erect a garage on a plot of land allocated for that purpose. Nonetheless, the applicant was unable to do so because the authorities failed to issue the necessary permit to erect the garage by the expiry of the term of the land development contract. As of the latest information available (25 May 2023), the District Court’s judgment remains unenforced and the Municipality is currently reviewing the possibility of extending the term of the land development contract. In 2005 the applicant brought an action against the Municipality seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from the non-enforcement of the above-mentioned judgment. In particular, as regards pecuniary damage, the applicant asked the court that the Municipality pay him a sum necessary to purchase a garage, as well as compensation for the rent he had paid for another garage due to non-enforcement of the District Court’s judgment. On 18 October 2022 the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction allowed the applicant’s application in part and awarded him 2,000,000   Armenian drams (AMD) in compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage and AMD 4,563,640 – for pecuniary damage in respect of the rent paid by the applicant. The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. There is no information about the finality of this judgment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the District Court’s judgment of 8 October 2002 fully and timely enforced? If not, was the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour compatible with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ( Burdov v. Russia (no.   2) , no.   33509/04, §§   65-70, ECHR 2009; Gerasimov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 29920/05 and 10 others §§ 168, 177-179 and 182-183, 1 July 2014; and Dimitar Yanakiev v.   Bulgaria (no. 2) , no. 50346/07, §§   69-70 and   76 ‑ 77, 31 March 2016)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention ( Burdov (no.   2) , cited above, §§ 96-100)?   The parties are invited to inform the Court whether the judgment of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction of 18 October 2022 became final, as well as to submit the relevant decisions of the higher instances if any.