Communicated on 7 November 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 52821/17 Nelli Musayevna YUSIFZADA against Azerbaijan lodged on 14 July 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s complaint about non-payment of statutory additional compensation for expropriation of her property by the Baku City Executive Authority (”the BCEA”) through conclusion of a sale contract with her on the basis of Order No. 243 of the head of the BCEA dated 31 May 2011. The order stated that pursuant to a project on expansion of a highway the residents of the buildings and houses located in the expansion area were to be relocated and given compensation of 1,500 Azerbaijani manats per sq. m. of surface area. The additional compensation that the applicant claims to be entitled to consists of the following:

‑ Additional compensation in the amount of 20% of the main compensation, in accordance with Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007; and

‑ Additional compensation in the amount of 10% of the main compensation, in accordance with Article 66 of the Law on Expropriation of Lands.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

If so, was the applicant ’ s property expropriated by the State authorities in compliance with the law?

If the deprivation was lawful, did that deprivation impose and excessive burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999 ‑ V)?

In particular, was the applicant entitled to statutory additional compensation in the amount of 20% (pursuant to Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007) and 10% (pursuant to Article 66 of the Law on Expropriation of Lands) of the main compensation?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?

In particular, has the applicant been refused to be paid additional compensation, whereas other individuals in the same situation have been paid such compensation?

If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and have a reasonable justification?