Communicated on 30 November 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 4867/10 Gazanfar MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 12 January 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Gazanfar Mammadov , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1964 and lives in Baku. He is repres ented before the Court by Mr H. Mammadov , a lawyer practising in Baku.

The circumstances of the case

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

1 . Background

On 9 November 1999 the Binagadi District Executive Authority (“the BDEA”) issued an order allowing a certain V.A. to build a cafe using light construction materials on a particular plot of land.

On 3 May 2001 the cafe, constructed from stone, was registered in the state registry and the corresponding technical passport was issued to V.A.

On 6 March 2004 the applicant purchased the cafe from N.J., who had previously purchased it from V.A.

On 20 April 2004 the State Committee on Construction and Architecture (“the SCCA”) issued a certificate of title to the cafe to the applicant.

2 . First set of proceedings

On an unspecified date the Baku Metro lodged a claim against the applicant seeking demolition of the cafe as it had been unlawfully built on a plot of land owned by the Baku Metro.

On 6 September 2006 the Binagadi District Court upheld this claim.

On an unspecified date the cafe was demolished.

3 . Second set of proceedings

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim with the Binagadi District Court against the BDEA and the Ministry of Finance seeking compensation in respect of damage incurred as a result of the above unlawful actions of the State authorities.

On 27 June 2007 the Binagadi District Court upheld the applicant ’ s claim, finding that the applicant had sustained damage as a result of the BDEA ’ s unlawful order of 9 November 1999.

The BDEA and the Ministry of Finance appealed.

On 11 April 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the appeals and quashed the first-instance court ’ s judgment, finding that the final and binding judgment of the Binagadi District Court of 17 January 2008 (see below the third set of proceedings) had annulled the applicant ’ s title and his claim for damages had therefore been unsubstantiated.

On 28 January 2009 the applicant ’ s cassation appeal was rejected as lodged outside the statutory time-limit.

4 . Third set of proceedings

After the Binagadi District Court ’ s judgment of 27 June 2007 the BDEA lodged a claim with the Binagadi District Court against the applicant, the SCCA and the State Registry Office of Real Estate, seeking annulment of the applicant ’ s title as the cafe had been unlawfully built.

On 17 January 2008 the Binagadi District Court upheld the BDEA ’ s claim, finding that the cafe had been unlawfully built and all subsequent sales and registrations had therefore been unlawful.

The applicant appealed, arguing that he had been a bona fide buyer.

On 20 November 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 14 July 2009 the Supreme Court upheld this judgment, reiterating the first-instance court ’ s reasoning.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his title to the cafe was unlawfully annulled without any compensation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his 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?

2. In particular, what were the grounds for annulment of the applicant ’ s title? Was the applicant a bona fide buyer? What were the requirements of the domestic law in respect of annulment of the title in case of bona fide buyers?

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