4.  The applicants live in Shnogh village.
5.  In the 1970s a copper-molybdenum deposit (‘Teghout’) was discovered about four and six km away from the villages of Teghout and Shnogh respectively, in the Lori Region.
6.  In 2001 a private company, Armenian Copper Programme CJSC, was granted a mining licence for the exploitation of the Teghout copper‑molybdenum deposit for a period of twenty-five years.
7.  On 1 November 2007 the Government adopted Decree no. 1279-N approving the designation of territories situated within the administrative boundaries of the rural communities of Shnogh and Teghout in the Lori Region as expropriation zones, to be taken for State needs, thus changing the land use category. According to the decree, Armenian Copper Programme CJSC or Teghout CJSC, founded by the former for the purpose of the implementation of the Teghout copper-molybdenum deposit exploitation project, were to acquire the units of land listed in its annexes.
8.  The plot of land belonging to the applicants was listed among the units of land falling within these expropriation zones.
9.  The applicants, a family of five, live in Shnogh village and earn their living from agriculture. They jointly owned a plot of arable land in the village measuring 1.622 ha. The land was used for growing crops for the family and feeding their livestock.
10.  On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicants containing an offer to buy their plot of land for 818,000 Armenian drams (AMD, approximately 1,780 euros (EUR)) plus an additional 15% as required by law, making the final offer AMD 940,700 (approximately EUR 2,045).
11.  The applicants did not reply to the letter, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered.
12.  On 12 May 2008 Teghout CJSC lodged a claim against the applicants, seeking to oblige them to sign an agreement for their property to be taken for State needs. The company based its claim, inter alia, on a valuation report prepared at its request by Oliver Group LLC, a licensed valuation company. According to the report, the market value of the applicants’ plot of land was estimated at AMD 818,000 (approximately EUR 1,780).
13.  In the proceedings before the Lori Regional Court, the fourth applicant represented the other applicants and argued that the market value of their land had been underestimated. He requested additional time to be able to submit an alternative valuation report.
14.  It appears that the applicants were unable to obtain a valuation of their property by another company. They claim that no other valuation company was willing to make an independent assessment of the market value of their land.
15.  During the proceedings Teghout CJSC submitted another valuation of the applicants’ property, stating that Oliver Group LLC had prepared a corrected report according to which the market value of the property was AMD 900,000 (approximately EUR 1,960). The final amount of compensation, including the additional 15% required by law, would thus be equal to AMD 1,035,000 (approximately EUR 2,250).
16.  On 26 September 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC’s claim, awarding the applicants a total of AMD 1,035,000 in compensation.
17.  The applicants lodged an appeal complaining, inter alia, that the market value of their land had been seriously underestimated and that the amount of compensation offered to them was inadequate. They further argued that the fact that Oliver Group LLC had submitted two different valuation reports during the proceedings raised doubts as to the credibility of its reports, and that the court should have initiated an independent valuation of their property.
18.  On 29 January 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment, finding, inter alia, that the market value of the property to be taken for State needs had been correctly estimated, on the basis of the valuation report contained in the case file.
19.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They argued, inter alia, that the Regional Court had failed to order an independent valuation of the property, despite having the power to do so under the law. They submitted that they had disagreed with the valuation report submitted by the other party to the proceedings, which was moreover not an expert opinion and therefore could not be admitted as evidence.
20.  On 24 June 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicants’ cassation appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.