Tweet
THE STATE DOES NOT PROTECT CITIZENS DEPRIVED OF THEIR HOMES FOR THE SAKE OF EMINENT DOMAIN
February 12 2015
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has issued about 10
judgments, which recognize the violations of the property owners'
rights for the territory in the center of Yerevan recognized as an
"eminent domain", but it has not yet caused systemic changes. This
is proved by the group of civil society organizations. Studying our
country's social, economic and cultural rights, the group prepared
a report. Despite the ECHR's decisions, in one case, the government
has not compensated the amount provided for destroy of a citizen's
property. In other cases, the government, in violation of the decision
on reconciliation agreement, has offered the plaintiffs some apartments
in newly built private residential buildings, which, however, were
actually sold to other people. The authors of the report mention that
in compliance to the RA Law on "Alienation of Property for Public and
State Needs", the state does not guarantee the protection for the
rights of its citizens whose property is alienated "for public and
state needs." "Though the decision-maker is the government, anyway,
the agreements on alienation of the property are signed between the
former and the new owners, and the government refuses to take any
responsibility. Currently, there are hundreds of homeless victims
suffered from "public use" who were deceived by companies that have
promised to give them new apartments instead of their property, which,
however, were not built in time, or were sold to more than one owner,
or were simply declared default for no-execution of other contractual
obligations," says the report, which was submitted to the UN Human
Rights Council by the group of civil society organizations. Note
that the Open Society Foundations - Armenia organization supported
the preparation works of this report.
According to the study of the group, currently, 365 owners have become
homeless, because one of the companies was recognized bankrupt.
Several companies did not provide building of a new property instead
of the confiscated one. Others have sold the ready-made apartments to
a few owners. The authors of the document mentioned that in 2005, 34
families in Syunik have lost their private lands without a notice and
agreement because of a road construction. "The promises of compensation
still remain hanging in the air, to the point, the residents still
pay the property tax for their lost lands." The members of the group,
studying the alienation practice in our country, also record that
the public property is managed and sold by failing to ensure public
participation in the decision-making process, though such practice is
prohibited by a number of legal acts. "The decisions of administrative
bodies are not disputed in the courts, as it's difficult for the
citizens to prove how their rights are violated.
Moreover, NGOs do not receive a proper plaintiff status for the cases
related to public interest and resources. In September 2010, the
Constitutional Court's decision ratified that in some defined spheres,
the justice should be available to NGOs, if the protection of rights in
these spheres is provided by the NGO Charters, as well as the cases,
by which the lower courts instances have been ineffective." To avoid
all of this, the member of the group offer making amendments in
the RA Law on "Alienation of Property for Public and State Needs",
by clarifying the grounds for recognition of "eminent domain".
Lusine BUDAGHYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2015/02/12/168813/
February 12 2015
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has issued about 10
judgments, which recognize the violations of the property owners'
rights for the territory in the center of Yerevan recognized as an
"eminent domain", but it has not yet caused systemic changes. This
is proved by the group of civil society organizations. Studying our
country's social, economic and cultural rights, the group prepared
a report. Despite the ECHR's decisions, in one case, the government
has not compensated the amount provided for destroy of a citizen's
property. In other cases, the government, in violation of the decision
on reconciliation agreement, has offered the plaintiffs some apartments
in newly built private residential buildings, which, however, were
actually sold to other people. The authors of the report mention that
in compliance to the RA Law on "Alienation of Property for Public and
State Needs", the state does not guarantee the protection for the
rights of its citizens whose property is alienated "for public and
state needs." "Though the decision-maker is the government, anyway,
the agreements on alienation of the property are signed between the
former and the new owners, and the government refuses to take any
responsibility. Currently, there are hundreds of homeless victims
suffered from "public use" who were deceived by companies that have
promised to give them new apartments instead of their property, which,
however, were not built in time, or were sold to more than one owner,
or were simply declared default for no-execution of other contractual
obligations," says the report, which was submitted to the UN Human
Rights Council by the group of civil society organizations. Note
that the Open Society Foundations - Armenia organization supported
the preparation works of this report.
According to the study of the group, currently, 365 owners have become
homeless, because one of the companies was recognized bankrupt.
Several companies did not provide building of a new property instead
of the confiscated one. Others have sold the ready-made apartments to
a few owners. The authors of the document mentioned that in 2005, 34
families in Syunik have lost their private lands without a notice and
agreement because of a road construction. "The promises of compensation
still remain hanging in the air, to the point, the residents still
pay the property tax for their lost lands." The members of the group,
studying the alienation practice in our country, also record that
the public property is managed and sold by failing to ensure public
participation in the decision-making process, though such practice is
prohibited by a number of legal acts. "The decisions of administrative
bodies are not disputed in the courts, as it's difficult for the
citizens to prove how their rights are violated.
Moreover, NGOs do not receive a proper plaintiff status for the cases
related to public interest and resources. In September 2010, the
Constitutional Court's decision ratified that in some defined spheres,
the justice should be available to NGOs, if the protection of rights in
these spheres is provided by the NGO Charters, as well as the cases,
by which the lower courts instances have been ineffective." To avoid
all of this, the member of the group offer making amendments in
the RA Law on "Alienation of Property for Public and State Needs",
by clarifying the grounds for recognition of "eminent domain".
Lusine BUDAGHYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2015/02/12/168813/