The Court of General Jurisdiction of Shengavit Administrative District of Yerevan considered the civil case Artashes Sargsyan v the claim of Yerevan Municipality on establishing compulsory servitude upon the land parcel.
The claimants’ representative informed the court that Ernest Sargsyan and his family lived in House 88 on Noragavit 6th street since 1970. The land parcel adjacent to the house was used as the only way to enter their house.
After Ernest Sargsyan’s death Artashes Sargsyan inherited the property. And continued using the land parcel as the only way to enter the house.
The Court was requested to impose compulsory servitude upon the 51,24 square meters land plot adjacent to the house at the address 88/1 of Noragavit 6th street of Yerevan.
The respondent’s representative refuted the claim and introduced a counter-claim informing the Court that the claimant failed to introduce any proofs on failure to reaching an agreement with the Yerevan Municipality on imposing the voluntary servitude or agreeing on its terms. Furthermore the latter had never applied to Yerevan Municipality with this issue.
Pursuant to Article 210 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, “The owner of a land parcel has the right to demand from the owner of a neighboring land parcel the grant of the right of limited use of this parcel servitude).”
A servitude may be established to provide for walking and riding through the neighboring land parcel, installation and exploitation of lines of electric transmission, communications and pipelines, provision of water supply and melioration and also other needs of the owner of the immovable property that cannot be ensured without establishment of the servitude.
Pursuant to Article 212 (1) of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, “A compulsory servitude shall be established by a court on suit by a person requesting establishment of the servitude in the case of failure to achieve agreement on the establishment or conditions of a voluntary servitude.”
The Court took into consideration the fact that the respondent had never objected to the establishment of servitude, however the claimant never applied with such request and the claimant had not proved the opposite as well. The Court decided to deny the claim on establishing compulsory servitude.
Source: Iravaban.net
