Published on 21 June 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 15440/14 Mehman Aziz oglu AGAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 14 October 2013 communicated on 31 May 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged unlawful expropriation of the applicant ’ s flat and the plot of land underneath the building where it was situated by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) for the purpose of constructing the Winter Park, a new garden-park complex .

The applicant brought proceedings against the BCEA and the State Committee on Property Issues asking the domestic courts, inter alia , to invalidate the BCEA ’ s order of 16 February 2011 and related administrative acts, which formed the basis for expropriation, to order defendants to stop their actions breaching his property and other rights, and to award him compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The first-instance court dismissed the applicant ’ s claims. The appellate court partly quashed the lower court ’ s judgment and ordered the BCEA to pay the applicant compensation for his expropriated flat. On 8 May 2013, following the applicant ’ s cassation appeal, the Supreme Court declared his claims inadmissible finding, inter alia , that ( i ) only the applicant ’ s claim about the invalidity of the order of 16 February 2011 was addressed against a concrete defendant, that is the BCEA, and the remaining claims were unclear and not specifically addressed against each defendant, and (ii) the above order concerned not only the applicant, but also other persons in the respective area and thus, he did not have the right to contest its validity.

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains about a breach of his right of access to court. He further complains under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the alleged unlawful demolition and expropriation of his flat. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he was not afforded a remedy providing effective protection against the violation of his rights .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 8 May 2013, has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right of access to court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, were the invoked grounds for inadmissibility relevant and sufficient?

3. Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 76254/11, 29 January 2015; Khalikova v. Azerbaijan , no. 42883/11, 22 October 2015; and Maharramov v. Azerbaijan , no. 5046/07, 30 March 2017)?

In particular, what were the substantive and procedural conditions required by the applicable law for the expropriation to be lawful, and were those conditions complied with in the present case? If the interference was lawful, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

4. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the demolition of his flat by the State authorities? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

5. Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?