Communicated on 11 October 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 4940/10 Babasahib BABAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 11 January 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr B. Babayev , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1959 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Ismayilov , 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 3 September 1997 the Sabail District Executive Authority (the “SDEA”) issued an occupancy voucher to the applicant and his family members in respect of a flat in Baku. However, they could not move into the flat as it had been occupied since 1992 by a certain H.I. and his family members, who were internally displaced persons (“IDPs”).

On 17 September 1998 the Presidential Order on a State Programme for the resolution of the problems of refugees and IDPs was adopted, according to which the legal force of occupancy vouchers issued in respect of the flats temporarily occupied by IDPs in 1992-1994 was to be temporarily suspended.

On an unspecified date in 2008 the Binagadi District Executive Authority (the “BDEA”) lodged a claim with the Binagadi District Court against the applicant and the SDEA, asking for the applicant ’ s occupancy voucher to be declared invalid. It was argued that H.I. and his family had been living in the flat in question since 1992 and the occupancy voucher had therefore been unlawfully issued.

On 29 August 2008 the Binagadi District Court upheld the claim, finding that the respective flat had not been “vacant” as required by law when the occupancy voucher was issued.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to the Shirvan Court of Appeal, his main argument being that the flat had been vacant in the legal sense.

On 23 July 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, finding that the occupancy voucher had been lawfully issued and that, although the flat had been occupied, from a legal point of view it had been vacant.

The BDEA appealed against this judgment.

On 17 November 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the appellate court ’ s judgment and upheld the BDEA ’ s claim, finding that the flat should have been actually vacant, and not only from the legal point of view.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was unlawfully deprived of his flat due to his occupancy voucher to that flat having been declared invalid.

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. If so, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC] , no. 22774/9 3, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?