Communicated on 30 August 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 59278/11 INSHAATCHI KOOPERATIVI against Azerbaijan lodged on 7 September 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Inshaatchi Kooperativi , is a private company with registered seat in Beylegan , Azerbaijan. It is represented before the Court by Mr A. Rustamov , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 10 May 1992 the applicant company purchased the sport and health zone located in Beylegan , including a soccer stadium (“the Zone”) from the State-owned Beylegan Agro Combine on the basis of a contract of sale. According to the contract the applicant company had to pay ten percent of the contract value in advance and the remaining amount in instalments within ten years.

On 20 July 1992 Presidential Decree No. 63 on regulation of the changes of property rights to the State property was adopted. In accordance with the Decree, sale and privatisation of any State property was suspended until adoption of a relevant law regulating those issues.

On 22 July 1992 the contract of sale of 10 May 1992 was registered at the Beylegan District Executive Authority (“the BDEA”).

On 11 November 1992 the Zone was handed over to the applicant company.

On 21 February 1994 the applicant company completed payment of the full price under the contract of sale of 10 May 1992.

On 29 September 1995 the Law on state programme for privatization of State property in years 1995 to 1998 was adopted. According to Point 10 of the Annex 1 to this Law, entities and organizations funded from the State budget could not be privatized.

On 30 July 1996 the State Construction and Architecture Committee registered the applicant company ’ s ownership of the Zone and issued a technical passport to the applicant company in respect of the Zone.

On 10 December 2002 the State Construction and Architecture Committee issued a duplicate of the certificate of ownership to the applicant company as the old one had been lost.

On an unspecified date in 2010 the BDEA lodged a claim with the Shirvan Local Economic Court against the applicant company asking for annulment of the applicant company ’ s certificate of ownership of 10 December 2002. The plaintiff argued that under the Presidential Decree of 20 July 1992 and the Law of 29 September 1995 the Zone could not have been sold to the applicant company and thus its sale and the subsequent certificate of ownership issued to the applicant company had been unlawful.

The applicant company contested the claim arguing that neither the Presidential Decree of 20 July 1992, nor the Law of 29 September 1995 could have been applied to the case, as the contract of sale had been concluded prior to their adoption. The applicant company further argued that the BDEA had failed to comply with the statutory time-limit for lodging the claim, considering that the contract of sale had been concluded eighteen years ago and the BDEA had been aware of it since that time.

On 8 June 2010 the first-instance court upheld the BDEA ’ s claim. In respect of the statutory time-limit the court found that the BDEA had asked for the annulment of the certificate of ownership of 10 December 2002 and not the contract of sale of 10 May 1992. The court further held that in any event the BDEA had become aware of the contract of sale only in September 2009.

On 18 November 2010 the Shirvan Court of Appeal and on 9 March 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, reiterating the first-instance court ’ s reasoning.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the annulment of its certificate of ownership to a sport and health zone, including a soccer stadium was unlawful and unjustified.

2. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings in connection with the annulment of its certificate of title were not fair.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant company 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?

2. In particular, what was the legal basis for the annulment of the applicant company ’ s certificate of ownership to the Zone? When was the contract of sale of 10 May 1992 considered to be “concluded” under the law, applicable at the material time, and was it lawful at the time of its conclusion? On which date did the applicant company become the owner of the Zone under the law, applicable at the material time? Was the Beylegan District Executive Authority ’ s claim lodged within the statutory time-limit?

3. Did the annulment of the certificate of ownership without any compensation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

4. 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?