Communicated on 30 August 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 35474/13 Zohrab ISMAYILOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 2 May 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zohrab Ismayilov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Jamalzade , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

Sometime in 2004 the applicant built a house in the Bibiheybat area of Baku without a construction permit or other authorisation, and from then lived in the house with his family. The house was connected to the utilities by the State-owned providers and the applicant received and paid the electricity, gas and water bills. The applicant ’ s ID card indicated the address of this house as his place of residence. Notices about elections sent to the applicant were delivered by the relevant State authorities to this address. The area where the applicant ’ s house was located was a residential settlement with many houses, a hospital, a kindergarten, a school and buildings.

On 28 September 2010 the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) lodged a claim with the Sabail District Court against the applicant, seeking demolition of the house at the applicant ’ s expense because he had unlawfully built it on State-owned land allocated to SOCAR in 1962.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a counter-claim against SOCAR asking for compensation. The applicant argued that he had been living there for six years without any objection by the authorities, that the plot of land in question had not been used by SOCAR for decades and had been transformed into residential settlement, that although the house had been built without permits, it had been his possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that he had no other place to live.

On 17 March 2011 the Sabail District Court granted SOCAR ’ s claim and dismissed the applicant ’ s counter-claim finding that the house had been unlawfully built on State-owned land allocated to SOCAR in 1962.

On 8 June 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.

On 4 November 2011 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment in part concerning non-payment of compensation finding that the house was the applicant ’ s possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The case was remitted to the appellate court for re-examination.

On 15 February 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the judgment of 17 March 2011 finding that although the applicant had been entitled to compensation under the Convention, SOCAR could not be ordered to pay compensation because it had not yet caused any damage to the applicant. The court further held that the value of the building materials and other expenses incurred by the applicant had not been precisely calculated.

On 2 November 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that the court order for the demolition of his house without compensation was in breach of his rights as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the demolition order violated his right to respect for his home.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s house a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If yes, was the applicant deprived of his possession in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the m eaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?

2. Was there an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Was the decision-making process of the domestic courts such as to afford due respect to the applicant ’ s interests as protected under Article 8 of the Convention?

3. At the time the house was constructed, what was the legal status of the land on which it was located? When did the State authorities first become aware that the house existed? When did the State authorities first raise an objection in respect of the applicant ’ s house? Since the lodging of the present application, has the house been demolished in accordance with the relevant domestic court decisions, and if so, when?

4. The parties are requested to provide, where relevant and available, the requisite documentary evidence in support of their replies.