Communicated on 22 February 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 73188/14 Agavali HASANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 7 November 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Agavali Hasanov , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1939 and lives in Saatli . He is repres ented before the Court by Mr Y. Agazade , 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.

The applicant is the sole shareholder and director of company B., which since 2006 has managed the incubation of chicks in a non-residential building (hereinafter “the building”) in Saatli .

The building was owned by company A. until 22 October 2010, when it was sold to the applicant.

In March 2010 the Saatli District Executive Authority (“SDEA”) removed the door and four windows of the building on the side facing H. Aliyev Avenue and walled up the resulting gaps, as in the opinion of the SDEA they did not look nice and negatively affected the general appearance of the area.

In May 2010, 11,187 chicks perished at the building. According to a report dated 10 May 2010 signed by the officials of Saatli District Veterinary Office, the chicks perished due to lack of air. According to the expert opinion of the Sabirabad District Veterinary Laboratory dated 17 May 2010, the chicks had not had any infectious diseases. The report of 10 May 2010 referred to this expert opinion without indicating its date.

On an unspecified date the applicant applied to the Saatli District Prosecutors ’ Office (“SDPO”) and complained about the unlawful actions on the part of the head of the SDEA and the damage that had been caused.

According to a report of 26 March 2011 issued by the investigator of the SDPO, the chief architect of the SDEA stated that the door and the windows of the building had been walled up on the instructions of the SDEA. In his statement to the investigator, the first deputy of the head of the SDEA also stated that the door and windows of the building had been walled up by the SDEA.

On 27 March 2011 the SDPO refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that the actions of the head of the SDEA did not constitute a criminal offence.

On other, later dates, more chicks perished in the building.

On 3 September 2012 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Shirvan Administrative-Economic Court against the SDEA, arguing that the SDEA ’ s actions were unlawful and asking for 200,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in respect of pecuniary damage and AZN 15,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage.

On 6 February 2014 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant ’ s claims, finding that the door and the windows of the building had been walled up by the applicant himself at the request of the SDEA and with their financial assistance. The court further held that the building had not been the property of either the applicant or company B. at the material time and that, according to the technical passport of the building dated 21 June 2011, it did not have any windows or doors on the side facing H. Aliyev Avenue. The court also held that, according to letters in the possession of the Saatli Office of the State Social Insurance Fund and the Saatli District Statistics Office, company B. had not been engaged in any business activity from 2006 to 2011 and the applicant could therefore not have suffered any pecuniary damage. Referring to the report of 10 May 2010, the court found that it could not be considered as reliable evidence because it was written in a unilateral manner in favour of the applicant and referred to the expert opinion dated 17 May 2010.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to the Shirvan Court of Appeal, arguing mainly that the first-instance court had disregarded the report of 10 May 2010 and the SDEA ’ s officials ’ statements admitting that the door and the windows had been walled up by them.

On 16 April 2014 the Shirvan Court of Appeal and on 3 September 2014 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, mainly reiterating the first-instance court ’ s reasoning and also finding that the chicks had perished due to lack of air, not because of the walling up of the door and the windows.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings concerning his property rights were not fair, in particular that the assessment of evidence and findings of the domestic courts were arbitrary.

2. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the unlawful interference of the Saatli District Executive Authority (“SDEA”) with his property rights. In particular, he complains that the SDEA, without any legal basis, walled up the door and four windows of the non-residential building which his company was using for the incubation of chicks

3. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 of the Conve ntion and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that he was not afforded a remedy providing effective protection against the violation of his rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning o f Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?

In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s right to a reasoned decision respected? Were the domestic courts ’ findings based on a reasonable assessment of the facts (see Khamidov v. Russia , no. 72118/01, §§ 170-175, 15 November 2007 ?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his 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?