Communicated on 6 February 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 27741/13 Basti ORDUKHANOVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 11 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Basti Ordukhanova , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Baku. She is represented before the Court by Mr V. Hajibeyli , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

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

On 20 August 2005 the applicant brought a civil action with the Yasamal District Court against several respondents concerning the ownership title and possession of a flat, which she had bought in April 2005. The former owner of the flat brought a counter-claim, seeking to invalidate the contract of sale of the flat.

By a decision of 16 November 2005 the Yasamal District Court adjourned the hearing on the ground that another set of proceeding related to the case at hand was pending. On an unspecified date in 2008 the Yasamal District Court resumed the hearing.

On 21 July 2008 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant ’ s claim partially.

On 10 December 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

Following the applicant ’ s cassation appeal, on 7 July 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Baku Court of Appeal and remitted the case on the ground of inadequate legal assessment of the case by the appellate court.

By its judgment of 13 October 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Yasamal District Court of 21 July 2008.

Following the applicant ’ s cassation appeal, on 7 March 2012 the Supreme Court partially granted it and remitted the case back to the appellate court for a fresh consideration on the ground of lack of proper legal assessment of the facts of the case.

By its judgment of 29 June 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal granted the applicant ’ s claims partially.

On 23 August 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal rectified certain errors in the judgment.

On an unspecified date in 2012 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.

On 27 December 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s judgment, dismissing the applicant ’ s cassation appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings concerning her property dispute.

2. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about a violation of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions on account of the length of the proceedings concerning her property claims.

QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Have the proceedings in issue concerned the applicant ’ s “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the length of the civil proceedings concerning her property claims?

The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the civil proceedings.