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 category of land use. 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 plots of land belonging to the applicants were listed among the units of land falling within these expropriation zones.
9.  The applicants, a family of four, live in Shnogh village and earn their living from agriculture and apiculture. They jointly owned two plots of arable land in the village measuring 0.373 ha and 0.448 ha. They also owned a beekeeper’s house measuring 69.4 square metres situated on the second plot of land. The land was used for growing crops for the family, feeding their livestock and beekeeping.
10.  On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicants containing an offer to buy their plots of land. Compensation of 183,000 Armenian drams (AMD, approximately 398 euros (EUR)) and AMD 304,000 (approximately EUR 661) was offered for the two plots of land respectively, plus an additional 15% as required by law.
11.  The applicants did not reply to the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation. It appears that they tried to obtain an alternative valuation of their property by another company, but did not succeed. They claim that no other valuation company was willing to make an independent assessment of the market value of their land.
12.  On 12 May 2008 Teghout CJSC lodged a claim against the applicants seeking to oblige them to sign an agreement on the taking of their property for State needs. The company based its claim, inter alia, on the valuations prepared at its request by Oliver Group LLC, a licensed valuation company. According to the reports, the market value of the applicants’ plots of land was estimated at AMD 183,000 (approximately EUR 398) and AMD 304,000 (approximately EUR 661) respectively.
13.  In the proceedings before the Lori Regional Court the applicants argued that the market value of their land had been underestimated. They further submitted that the valuation of their property had not been carried out correctly, since no account had been taken of the number of trees, the beekeeper’s house situated on the second plot of land, and a number of other factors that should have affected the calculation of the amount of compensation.
14.  In the course of the proceedings, Teghout CJSC submitted new valuations of the applicants’ property, also prepared by Oliver Group LLC. The representative of Teghout CJSC stated that a new valuation of the applicant’s second plot of land had been conducted in order to include the building situated on it. According to the new valuations, the market value of the applicants’ second plot of land including the building was estimated to be AMD 1,728,000 (approximately EUR 3,760). As to the first plot of land, it was stated that Oliver Group LLC had prepared a corrected report according to which the market value of the property was AMD 189,000 (approximately EUR 410). The final amounts of compensation for the two plots of land, including the additional 15% required by law, would thus be equal to AMD 217,350 (approximately EUR 473) and AMD 1,987,200 (approximately EUR 4,320) respectively.
15.  On 28 November 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC’s claim, awarding the applicants compensation of AMD 217,350 for the first plot of land and AMD 1,987,200 for the second plot of land.
16.  The applicants lodged an appeal. Relying, inter alia, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, they complained that the Regional Court had deprived them of their property.
17.  On 18 June 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment finding, inter alia, that the latter had struck a fair balance between the applicants’ interests and the legitimate aim pursued, and that the market value of the property had been properly determined, on the basis of the corrected valuation reports prepared by Oliver Group CJSC.
18.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law, raising similar arguments to those submitted in the previous appeal.
19.  On 12 August 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicants’ cassation appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.