Communicated on 11 October 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 28257/14 Dursun RUSTAMOVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 1 April 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Dursun Rustamova , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1943 and lives in Sumgayit . She is represented before the Court by Mr F. Namazli , 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.

In 1992 the applicant moved to Agjabadi as an internally displaced person (“IDP”) following the occupation of the Lachin District, where she used to live, by Armenian armed forces.

In 2004 she moved to Sumgayit and, without a construction permit or other authorisation, built a house in the area called Sumgayit Station, in which she settled.

On 24 July 2011 the representatives of the Sumgayit City Executive Authority (“the SCEA”) demolished the applicant ’ s house with the assistance of police. The applicant ’ s furniture and personal belongings remained inside and were destroyed with the house.

On 4 August 2011 the SCEA stated in a letter to the applicant that the structure unlawfully built by her on “ squatted land” had been “annulled” by the SCEA.

On 26 August 2011, in a letter to the State Committee for Family, Women and Children Affairs, the SCEA stated that it had “prevented” the construction works carried out by the applicant on squatted land.

On 26 August 2011 the applicant lodged a claim with the Sumgayit Administrative-Economic Court against the SCEA and the State Committee on Refugees and IDPs asking for compensation in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the unlawful demolition of her house and loss of her furniture and personal belongings. She also asked for provision of a living space.

On 29 November 2012 the Sumgayit Administrative-Economic Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim for compensation, finding that the house had been an unauthorised construction and that she had therefore not had any lawful possessions. The court further held that the applicant had failed to prove that her house had been demolished by the SCEA. The judgment of the first-instance court was silent concerning her claim for provision of a living space.

The applicant appealed, arguing that she had been an IDP without any other place to live and had been living there for seven years without any objection by the authorities. Moreover, there were hundreds of other unlawfully built houses in the area that were tolerated by the State authorities. The applicant further argued that in its letters the SCEA itself admitted that it had demolished the applicant ’ s house. Lastly, the applicant argued that her claim concerning provision of a living space had not been examined at all.

On 6 May 2013 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal and on 4 September 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, reiterating the reasoning of the first-instance court. The Supreme Court ’ s judgment was served on the applicant on 1 October 2013.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that the demolition of her house without a court order and without compensation was in breach of her rights as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2. She also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the demolition of her house violated her right to respect for her home.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant 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? If so, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?

2. Was there an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Was the decision-making process of the domestic courts such as to afford due respect to the applicant ’ s interests as protected under Article 8 of the Convention?

3. When did the State authorities first become aware that the house existed and was used by the applicant? When did the State authorities first raise an objection in that respect? Were there any other squatter houses in the area where the applicant ’ s house was located (in the new residential quarter, Sumgayit Station)? If so, have they also been destroyed by the State authorities?

The parties are requested to provide, where relevant and available, necessary documentary evidence in support of their replies.