It is an established rule in most legal systems that expropriation (the taking of private property by the State) is legal only if carried out in the public interest, and subject to certain other defined conditions, such as the giving of compensation. Though the right of the State to expropriate in the public interest is hardly challenged, disputes have frequently arisen concerning the conditions under which a given expropriation has been carried out by the State.

In the case of Tchghlyan v. Armenia, the Applicant complains under Article 1 Protocol I ECHR that there were no “State needs” for the alienation of his property, as it was sold to other private or legal persons for a higher price and no relevant “State project” was ever announced. He further alleges that several provisions of Armenian law were violated in the taking of his property. In particular, he submits, the procedure for taking his land, as prescribed in these provisions, was violated; and that the amount of compensation was not properly calculated.

In the Report special focus is placed on the definition of “lawfulness” under Article 1 Protocol I ECHR, as well as the relativity of the amount of compensation for the assessment of the proportionality of the interference by a State with a person’s property rights. In doing so, there is introduced the general framework of Article 1, Protocol I to the Convention which, in providing for the right to property, also recognizes the right of the State to expropriate in the public interest. Thereafter, the required conditions for lawfulness of an expropriation under Article 1 Protocol I of the Convention are examined. The Report concludes with a statement of the major findings of the research.

Download the Report in English or in Armenian.