Communicated on 18 January 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 2773/09 Beyler ABBASOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 10 December 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Beyler Abbasov , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1970 and lives in Tartar.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant has been a veteran of the war for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

On 26 December 2001 Presidential Decree no. 613 on replacing the privileges for utilities, transport and other services with allowances was issued.

On an unspecified date in September 2004 the applicant applied to the Tartar District Military Commissariat in order to obtain a veteran ’ s card (“the card”).

On 11 October 2004, on an unspecified date in November 2005, and on 16 January 2006 the Commissariat sent letters to the Archive of the Ministry of Defence (“the Ministry”) asking for the certificate confirming the applicant ’ s military service.

Meanwhile, on 11 July 2005 Presidential Decree no. 257 amending the Decree of 26 December 2001 and establishing a monthly allowance of 11 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for veterans of the war for territorial integrity of Azerbaijan was issued. It became effective as of 1 August 2005.

On 17 April 2006 the Ministry sent the certificate to the Commissariat.

On 1 February 2007 the amount of the monthly allowance became AZN 15.

On 16 March 2007 the Commissariat issued the card to the applicant.

On 17 April 2007 the applicant applied to the Tartar Office of the Centre for Social Protection of Population (“the Centre”) and was awarded a pension with effect from 2 April 2007.

On 1 May 2007 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Tartar District Court against the Centre, the Commissariat and the Ministry asking for payment of AZN 243, the total unpaid allowance for the period from 1 August 2005 to 2 April 2007. He argued that he had requested the card in 2004 and the delay of two and a half years was attributable to inactivity on the part of the State authorities.

On 17 July 2007 the Tartar District Court partly granted his claim and ordered payment of AZN 228 by the Centre, finding that the reason for the applicant ’ s deprivation of the allowance for the period of time in question had been caused by inactivity of the State authorities.

The court also noted that, if correctly calculated, the total sum of the allowance for the period of time claimed by the applicant was actually AZN 228, not AZN 243. Thus, in substance, the applicant ’ s claim had actually been granted in full.

The Centre lodged an appeal. On 7 September 2007 the Ganja Court of Appeal summoned the applicant for the first appellate hearing on 8 October 2007 and informed him that he could lodge his objection up until that date. However, a copy of the appeal was not sent to the applicant and as a result, the applicant did not lodge an objection.

On 23 October 2007 the Court of Appeal granted the Centre ’ s appeal and dismissed the applicant ’ s claim, finding that the allowance had to be paid from the time the card had been issued.

The applicant appealed arguing that he had duly applied for the card in time and that the delay in issuance of the card had been caused by inactivity of the State authorities.

On 13 June 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal reiterating its reasoning.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was not informed of the defendant party ’ s appeal, and was thereby deprived of the opportunity to lodge an objection to it.

2. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure by the State authorities to pay him the statutory allowance, to which he was entitled as a veteran of war, for the period from 1 August 2005 to 2 April 2007.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was the interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the m eaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

2. In particular, what were the legal provisions applicable to the applicant ’ s request to obtain the veteran ’ s card? Were the relevant legal provisions of the domestic law concerning obtaining such veteran ’ s cards sufficiently precise and foreseeable? Was the Law of 10 June 1997 on examination of the citizens ’ requests, effective at the material time, applicable to the applicant ’ s request for obtaining the veteran ’ s card?

3. 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 failure to send the defendant party ’ s appeal to the applicant compatible with his right to adversarial proceedings, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?