Published on 21 June 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 31222/14 AGAYEV & ZULFUGARZADEH against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 April 2014 communicated on 31 May 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged unlawful expropriation by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) of the house, in the shared ownership of the applicant company and two individuals, and the plot of land underneath and attached to the property, for the purpose of constructing the Winter park, a new garden-park complex.

On 24 September 2012 the applicant company brought proceedings against the BCEA and several other State authorities asking, inter alia, for the invalidation of the BCEA ’ s administrative acts which formed the basis for expropriation and award of compensation for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damages. By a final judgment of 29 January 2014 the Supreme Court upheld the lower court ’ s judgment partly granting the applicant ’ s claims (compensation for the flat in the amount of 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per sq. m and additional statutory compensation). This judgment was not enforced. The applicant company ’ s new claim lodged on 7 March 2016 for the indexation of the amount due under the above judgment was declared inadmissible by the domestic courts.

The applicant company complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that it was unlawfully deprived of its property and that the domestic courts ’ decisions in that respect were not reasoned. Invoking the same Articles, it also complains about the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court ’ s judgment of 29 January 2014. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant company complains that it was not afforded a remedy providing effective protection against the violation of its rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant company been deprived of its 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 company (see, mutatis mutandis , Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

2. Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the applicant ’ s right to a reasoned decision respected?

3. Was the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court ’ s final judgment of 29 January 2014 contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

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