Communicated on 30 November 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 46134/09 Rabiyy a MAMMADOVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 August 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Rabiyy a Mammadova , is an Azerbaijani national who lives in Baku. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Sh ahverdi , 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.

On 30 December 2003 the applicant bought from the Government warehouse no. 1 of the Yasamal District Base for Maintenance of Closed Entities ( Qa palı Təşkilatların Təminatı Bazası – “the warehouse”) on the basis of a contract of sale between her and the Ministry of Economic Development.

On 10 January 2004 public information about the privatisation was published in Mülkiyyət , a newspaper issued by the Ministry of Economic Development.

On 13 January 2004 the applicant was issued an ownership certificate to the warehouse.

On 19 July 2004 the applicant was issued an ownership certificate to the plot of land on which the warehouse was located.

On 2 November 2005 the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) lodged a claim with the Khatai District Court against the applicant asking for annulment of the applicant ’ s certificates of title to the warehouse and the plot of land.

On 16 March 2006 the first-instance court upheld the BCEA ’ s claim, finding that under Article 2.2.12 of the Presi dential Decree of 10 August 2000 on the Second State Programme for Privatisation of State Property it had been possible to privatise the warehouse only by Presidential decision and thus its privatisation by the applicant had been unlawful.

The applicant appealed, arguing that the warehouse had been used for commercial purposes and had not fallen under the category of properties to be privatised by Presidential decision only. The applicant further argued that the BCE A had failed to comply with the statutory time-limit of one year for lodging the claim, considering that the public information had been published on 10 January 2004.

After a series of proceedings on 25 December 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 30 July 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, reiterating the first-instance court ’ s reasoning.

Judge R.A., one of the three judges who heard the case at the Supreme Court, was one of the three judges who had previously heard and decided the case at the Baku Court of Appeal on 8 February 2008.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the unlawful and unjustified annulment of her title to the warehouse and the plot of land without any compensation.

2. The applicant also complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in respect of the proceedings concerning the warehouse, as one of the members of the bench hearing the applicant ’ s case at the Supreme Court had previously heard the same case as a member of the bench at the Baku Court of Appeal.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In respect of the warehouse, has the applicant been deprived of her 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? In particular, did the warehouse in question fall within the category of property under Article 2.2.12 of the Presidential Decree of 10 August 2000 on the Second State Programme for Privatisation of State Property? Was the claim of annulment by the Baku City Executive Authority lodged within the statutory time-limit?

Did such annulment of 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)?

2. In respect of the proceedings concerning the warehouse, was the Supreme Court ’ s bench which dealt with the applicant ’ s case an impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?