4.  The applicants were born in 1933, 1940 and 1975 respectively and live in Teghout village. 5.  In the 1970s a copper-molybdenum deposit (‘Teghout’) was discovered about four and six km 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 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. 8.  The applicants, a family of three, live in Teghout village and earn their living from agriculture. They jointly owned a plot of arable land in the village measuring 0.430 ha. The land was used for growing crops for the family, gardening and feeding their livestock. 9.  On an unspecified date Teghout CJSC addressed a letter to the applicants containing an offer to buy their plot of land for 231,000 Armenian drams (AMD, approximately 500 euros (EUR)) plus an additional 15% as required by law, making the final offer AMD 265,650 (approximately EUR 578). 10.  The applicants did not reply to the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation. It appears that they were unable to obtain a valuation of their property by another company. They claim that no other valuer was willing to make an independent evaluation of the market value of their land. 11.  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 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 231,000 (approximately EUR 500). 12.  In proceedings before the Lori Regional Court the applicants argued that the market value of their land had been underestimated, since the lowest market prices had been considered during the valuation, while several plots of land had been acquired for much higher prices. They also argued that no account had been taken of the presence of fruit trees and that the valuation report erroneously stated that their plot of land did not have a water supply whereas it did have such a supply, which had actually been cut off because of the plaintiff’s activities on the property. 13.  On 3 July 2008 the first hearing at the Lori Regional Court was held. According to the Government, the applicants were duly notified of the date of the proceedings, but they did not appear. 14.  In the course of the proceedings Teghout CJSC submitted another valuation report on the applicants’ property, stating that Oliver Group LLC had prepared a corrected report according to which the market value of the land was AMD 262,000 (approximately EUR 570). The final amount of compensation with the additional 15% would thus be equal to AMD 301,300 (approximately EUR 655). 15.  On 6 October 2008 the Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC’s claim, awarding the applicants a total of AMD 301,300 (approximately EUR 655) in compensation. 16.  The applicants lodged an appeal, complaining that they had not been duly notified about the dates and times of the rescheduled hearings. 17.  On 29 January 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 18.  On 27 February 2009 the case was set for trial in Lori Regional Court. The court hearing was scheduled for 2 April 2009. The Government argued that the applicants had been duly notified of the hearing and that the notification letter, as always, had been sent to their addresses. 19.  On 2 April 2009 the applicants’ representative requested adjournment of the examination of the case. The court examination was adjourned and rescheduled for 22 April 2009. 20.  On 21 April 2009 the applicants’ representative lodged an application with the Lori Regional Court, asking for the examination of the case to be adjourned. Accordingly, on 22 April 2009 the court examination was adjourned and rescheduled for 29 April 2009. 21.  On 27 April 2009 the applicants’ counsel requested the Regional Court to order a forensic expert examination to determine the market value of the applicants’ plot of land, and to order that this examination was to be performed by experts of the State non-profit organisation “Expertise Center of the Republic of Armenia” (“Հայաստանի Հանրապետության փորձագիտական կենտրոն” պետական ոչ առևտրային կազմակերպություն). 22.  On 29 April 2009 the Lori Regional Court held a court hearing. During the hearing it became clear that there was no information concerning whether the applicants had been notified. In these circumstances, the Lori Regional Court decided to adjourn the examination, taking into consideration the fact that the applicants were not duly notified about the court hearing. The next hearing was scheduled for 20 May 2009, a notification to that effect was sent both to the applicants’ representative and the applicants. 23.  On 20 May 2009 both the applicants’ representative and the applicants were present at the hearing. The applicants’ representative requested that the court ordered that a forensic expert examination be made to determine the market value of the applicants’ plot of land. Furthermore, the Lori Regional Court refused the applicants’ representative’s request, which was based on the domestic legislation, according to which each party to the proceedings must itself present evidence on the facts. 24.  On 2 June 2009 the Lori Regional Court granted Teghout CJSC’s claim finding, inter alia, that the valuation reports prepared by Oliver Group LLC were lawful and acceptable evidence to determine the market value of the applicants’ property to be taken for State needs. The Regional Court dismissed counsel’s request and awarded the applicants AMD 301,300 (approximately EUR 655) in equal shares as compensation. 25.  On 22 June 2009 the applicants’ counsel lodged an appeal, claiming, inter alia, that the amount of compensation was not adequate. He argued that the Regional Court had accepted the reports submitted by the applicants’ opponent as established proof of the market value of their property, and that it had refused to order a forensic examination without any grounds. He further argued that the Regional Court should have exercised its statutory discretion to order an expert examination, since the necessity for it had arisen in the course of the proceedings and the applicants had no opportunity to provide an alternative valuation themselves. 26.  According to the case file, on 10 July 2009 the notifications of the hearing of the Court of Appeal scheduled for 24 July 2009 were sent to the applicants, but they did not appear at that hearing. 27.  On 24 July 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal hearing was held; the applicants and their representative were not present. 28.  On 7 August 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment, finding that the latter’s decision not to order a forensic examination was well grounded, since there was no necessity for it. The Court of Appeal further found that the amount of compensation had been correctly determined, on the basis of the corrected valuation report prepared by Oliver Group LLC, given that that report was the only lawful and acceptable piece of evidence produced during the proceedings. 29.  According to the applicants, the decision of the Court of Appeal was not served on their counsel. 30.  On 1 October 2009 the applicants’ counsel requested permission from the Regional Court to consult the case file. After the counsel’s request was granted, he made a copy of the Court of Appeal’s decision in order to lodge a cassation appeal. 31.  On 9 October 2009 the counsel lodged an appeal on points of law, raising similar complaints to those raised before the Court of Appeal. The counsel also submitted that the Court of Appeal had not duly notified him of the proceedings and had examined the appeal in his absence. Additionally, he requested to have the missed time-limits for lodging an appeal on points of law restored, explaining that the reason for late submission was the failure of the Court of Appeal to serve on him a copy of the decision of 7 August 2009, despite the fact that he was the applicants’ authorised representative in the proceedings. 32.  On 28 October 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the cassation appeal inadmissible as lodged out of time. In doing so, it found that the reasons for late submission advanced by counsel were not justified in view of the fact that the applicants had been served with a copy of the decision in due time.