European Court of Human Rights Delivers Judgement on Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan Case

European Court of Human Rights.

A decision by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan was delivered today in Strasbourg.The case concerns the Sargsyan family, who, after being forced to flee from their village of Gulistan in the Shahumyan region in 1992 during the Karabakh War, have since been denied the right to have access to their property, home and the graves of their relatives.

"In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:

-a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights;-a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention; and-a continuing violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

"Having regard to the exceptional nature of the case, the Court, by a majority, held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. Consequently, it reserved that question and invited both parties to submit within twelve months their observations on this matter and to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach.

"It was the first case in which the Court had to decide on a complaint against a State which had lost control over part of its territory as a result of war and occupation, but which at the same time was alleged to be responsible for refusing a displaced person access to property in an area remaining under its control.

"There are currently more than one thousand individual applications pending before the Court which were lodged by persons displaced during the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.

"In Mr Sargsyan’s case, the Court confirmed that, although the village from which he had to flee was located in a disputed area, Azerbaijan had jurisdiction over it. The Court considered that while it was justified by safety considerations to refuse civilians access to the village, the State had a duty to take alternative measures in order to secure Mr Sargsyan’s rights as long as access to the property was not possible. The fact that peace negotiations were ongoing did not free the Government from their duty to take other measures. What was called for was a property claims mechanism which would be easily accessible to allow Mr Sargsyan and others in his situation to have their property rights restored and to obtain compensation."

A similar judgement was delivered in the case of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia by the ECHR Grand Chamber.