5.  The applicants, Suren Osmanyan, Serob Osmanyan, Bakur Osmanyan, Mane Osmanyan and Donara Amiraghyan were born in 1935, 1961, 1988, 1990 and 1966 respectively and live in Teghout village. 6.  The applicants are a family of five, making their living from agriculture. They jointly owned a plot of arable land in the village measuring 0.383 ha. 7.  In the 1970s a copper-molybdenum deposit (“Teghout”) was discovered about 4 and 6 km from the villages of Teghout and Shnogh respectively, in the Lori Region. 8.  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. 9.  On 1 November 2007 the Government adopted Decree no. 1279-N approving the expropriation zones of territories situated within the administrative boundaries of the rural communities of Shnogh and Teghout in the Lori Region to be taken for State needs, and changing the category of land use. According to the Decree, Armenian Copper Programme CJSC or Teghout CJSC, founded by the former for the implementation of the Teghout copper-molybdenum deposit exploitation project, were to acquire the units of land listed in its annexes. The plot of land belonging to the applicants was listed among the units of land falling within these expropriation zones. 10.  On 25 March 2008 Oliver Group LLC, a licensed evaluation company hired by Teghout CJSC, delivered an evaluation report of the applicants’ plot of land. According to the report, the cadastral value of the applicants’ plot of land was AMD 250,865 (approximately EUR 545). By means of calculations based on comparative and income capitalisation methods, the market value of the applicants’ plot of land was estimated at AMD 188,000 (approximately EUR 409). 11.  On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicants containing an offer to buy their plot of land for AMD 188,000 plus an additional 15% as required by law, making the final offer AMD 216,200 (approximately EUR 470). 12.  The applicants did not reply to the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation. They claimed that they were unable to obtain an evaluation of their property by another company since no other evaluation company was willing to make an independent evaluation of the market value of their land. 13.  On 12 May 2008 Teghout CJSC lodged a claim with the Lori Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) against the applicants and L., the first applicant’s late wife, seeking to oblige them to sign the agreement on the taking of their property for State needs. The company based its claim, inter alia, on the evaluation report prepared by Oliver Group LLC. 14.  In the course of the proceedings Teghout CJSC submitted a corrected version of the evaluation report on the applicants’ property stating that Oliver Group LLC had made certain corrections as a result of which the market value of the land was estimated at AMD 194,000 (approximately EUR 422). The final amount of compensation, together with the additional 15% required by the law, would thus be equal to AMD 223,100 (approximately EUR 485). The remainder of the data contained in the original report had not been changed. 15.  The applicants argued before the Regional Court that the market value of their land had been underestimated and that the court should order a forensic expert examination to determine the real market value of their property. 16.  On 6 October 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC’s claim, awarding L. and the applicants a total of AMD 223,100 in compensation. 17.  The applicants lodged an appeal complaining, inter alia, that the third applicant had not been duly notified about the proceedings and that L. had died before the proceedings before the Regional Court had started. They further argued that they had not been duly notified about the dates and times of the rescheduled hearings. 18.  On 27 February 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 19.  On 2 June 2009 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC’s claim finding, inter alia, that the evaluation reports prepared by Oliver Group LLC should be considered lawful and acceptable evidence to determine the market value of the applicants’ property to be taken for State needs and that the applicants’ request to order a forensic expert examination was groundless. The Regional Court stated that the first applicant, as L.’s successor, should be awarded her share in the amount of compensation and awarded the applicants a total of AMD 223,100 in equal shares as compensation. 20.  The applicants lodged an appeal claiming, inter alia, that the amount of compensation was not adequate and that no account had been taken of their fruit trees and their profitability. They argued that the Regional Court had accepted the reports submitted by their opponent as established proof of the market value of their property. Also, they argued that the Regional Court should have exercised its statutory discretion to order an expert examination since such a necessity had arisen in the course of the proceedings and they had no possibility to provide an alternative evaluation themselves. 21.  On 31 July 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court’s judgment, stating that it should have granted the applicants’ request by ordering a forensic expert examination to determine the market value of the property. The case was remitted to the Regional Court. 22.  On 27 January 2010 the Regional Court ordered a forensic expert examination to determine the market value of the applicants’ plot of land, including that of immovable property or other improvements, if there were any. 23.  On 12 August 2010 expert G. of the “Expertise Centre”, a State nonprofit organisation, delivered a report according to which the market value of the property was estimated to be AMD 230,000 (approximately EUR 500). It was stated in the report that the applicants’ plot of land was entirely covered with grass, did not have any water supply and was used to provide fodder. There were four peach trees on the land in question. Relevant photographs of the applicants’ plot of land were attached to the report. 24.  On 1 November 2010 the Regional Court ordered an additional forensic expert examination. The expert was requested to determine whether there were any improvements on the applicants’ plot of land and, if so, to describe them and to establish the market value of the land together with the value of the improvements, if there were any. 25.  On 17 December 2010 expert A. of “National Bureau of Expertise”, a State nonprofit organisation, delivered his report which estimated the market value of the applicants’ plot of land at AMD 209,100 (approximately EUR 450). The report confirmed the description of the applicants’ plot of land contained in the previous expert report. In addition, it was stated that in the expert’s opinion that the four fruit trees on the land could not have any bearing on the determination of its market value. The report also stated that the first expert report and the evaluation report by Oliver Group CJSC had produced quite realistic results. 26.  On 21 April 2011 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC’s claim. It relied on the corrected evaluation report prepared by Oliver Group CJSC and two forensic expert reports. The Regional Court granted the applicants AMD 264,500 (approximately EUR 575) by taking the highest market value of the three evaluations at its disposal and adding to that amount the additional 15% as required by law. 27.  The applicants lodged an appeal arguing, inter alia, that the second forensic examination report was not credible since the expert had failed to specify the sources of information he had used to reach his conclusions and moreover no account had been taken of the number of the applicants’ trees and their value. They further argued that they had filed an application with the Regional Court seeking to exclude this piece of evidence and assign an additional forensic examination, but their application was dismissed. 28.  On 7 July 2011 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment finding that the amount of compensation had been correctly determined based on the existing evidence. As regards the applicants’ arguments concerning the fruit trees, the Civil Court of Appeal stated that both experts appointed by the Regional Court had recorded that there were only four fruit trees on the plot of land while expert A. had stated in his report that the trees in question could not have a significant bearing on the market value of the land. 29.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They raised similar complaints to those raised before the Court of Appeal. 30.  On 31 August 2011 the Court of Cassation declared the applicants’ cassation appeal inadmissible for lack of merit.