Lexploria

Communicated on 23 March 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no 73530/11 Alikram JAHANGIROV and Others against Azerbaijan and 12 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. They were born on various dates and live in various cities. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practicing in Azerbaijan (see Appendix for all details).

The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be briefly summarised as follows.

On various dates between 2008 and 2012 various state authorities expropriated the applicants ’ houses, flats, non-residential properties and/or plots of land (“the properties”), on the basis of orders issued by them or without any orders, for various purposes (see Appendix).

By way of compensation for the expropriated properties, some applicants were paid certain amount of money, some were provided with other properties. Some of the applicants were not granted any compensation at all (see Appendix).

On various dates the applicants lodged a complaint with the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, the Sabail District Court, the Gobustan District Court or the Salyan District Court.

They complained of breaches of their property rights, in particular that the expropriation of the properties had not been carried out in accordance with the law.

They also complained that the compensation offered or already provided by the State authorities had been unfair and inadequate, argu ing that the actual market prices of their properties had been much higher or asking for monetary compensation instead of alternative properties. In support of their complaints, some of the applicants submitted expert opinions regarding the market prices of their properties. In some cases the courts ordered expert reports regarding the values of the properties.

The applicants asked for the return or restoration of their properties or fair compensation. Some of the applicants also lodged claims in respect of pecuniary damage, including lost profit, and non-pecuniary damage for their suffering as a result of the expropriation.

In respect of applications nos. 17894/13, 65356/13, 45751/14, 52999/14, 60545/14, 6250/15 and 7637/15, on various dates (see Appendix), the relevant first-instance courts dismissed the applicants ’ complaints in full, finding that their properties had been expropriated in accordance with the law and the amount of compensation had been adequate.

In respect of applications nos. 73530/11, 73533/11, 65895/13, 11431/15, 15435/14 and 15905/15, on various dates (see Appendix), the relevant first ‑ instance courts partly upheld the applicants ’ complaints, ordering the State authorities to pay a certain amount of money or to provide a similar property as compensation (see Appendix).

On various dates the applicants lodged appeals against the respective decisions of the first-instance courts with the Baku Court of Appeal, the Sumgayit Court of Appeal or the Shirvan Court of Appeal reiterating their complaints.

On various dates (see Appendix) the appellate courts dismissed or partly upheld the applicants ’ appeals, largely reiterating the first-instance courts ’ reasoning.

On various dates the applicants lodged appeals with the Supreme Court, reiterating their complaints.

On various dates (see Appendix) the Supreme Court dismissed or partly upheld the applicants ’ appeals, largely reiterating the respective appeal court ’ s reasoning .

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings instituted by them in connection with the expropriation and demolition of their properties were not fair, in particular that the domestic courts delivered unreasoned judgments by failing to properly verify the compliance of the interference and of the determination of the compensation with the applicable domestic legislation.

2. The applicant in application no. 15905/15 also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that its right to a trial within a reasonable time was breached.

3. The applicants in applications nos. 52999/14, 6250/15 and 7637/15 complain, under Article 8 of the Convention, that the unlawful expropriation of their properties and/or their unlawful eviction amounted to a violation of their right to respect for their homes.

4. The applicants complain that the expropriation of their properties amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They further complain that the amount of compensation paid for the properties was unfair and inadequate.

COMMON QUESTION

1. Were the applicants deprived of their 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 to the Convention? Moreover, were the amounts of compensation paid to the applicants fair and adequate in terms of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

In particular, how was that deprivation classified under domestic law (expropriation, nationalisation , confiscation, or other)? What deed (document or physical action of a public authority) constituted the interference in the present cases? What was the law applicable to the relevant form of deprivation of property? What were the substantive and procedural conditions required by the applicable law for the relevant form of deprivation of property to be lawful, and were those conditions complied with in the present cases? What was the legal basis for the acts and decisions of the relevant state authorities in the present cases, and did those authorities have competence under domestic law to take decisions resulting in the deprivation of privately-owned property, as in the present cases?

If the interference was lawful, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1. In respect of applications nos. 65895/13, 15435/14, 45751/14, 52999/14, 60545/14, 6250/15, 7637/15 and 11431/15:

Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in the proceedings concerning the violation of their property rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants ’ right to a reasoned judgment respected?

2. In respect of application no. 15905/15:

Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. In respect of applications nos. 52999/14, 6250/15 and 7637/15:

Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the demolition of their properties and their eviction from them by the executive authorities? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

4. In respect of application no. 7637/15 :

Were the applicants ’ expropriated houses “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

5. In respect of applications nos. 45741/14, 7637/15, 11431/15 and 15905/15 :

Were the plots of land underneath and/or attached to the applicants ’ properties “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, what were their sizes? Were the applicants paid any compensation for the land underneath and/or attached to their properties?

6. In respect of applications no. 4 5741/14, 60545/14, 11431/15 and 15905/15 :

What were the sizes of the applicants ’ expropriated properties?

7. In respect of applications nos. 7637/15 and 11431/15:

Who demolished the applicants ’ properties?

8. In respect of applications nos. 45741/14 and 7637/15:

What was the total amount of compensation received by the applicants?

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

APPENDIX

No

Appli -cation

no.

Lodged

on

Applicant ’ s name

date of birth

place of residence

Represented by

Expropriating State authority

Legal basis

Purpose of the expropriation

Expropriated property

Compensation given

initially (I)

by court decision (CD)

Domestic courts ’ judgments/decisions

1

73530/11*

09/11/2011

Alikram JAHANGIROV

Gobustan

Sakhavat JAHANGIROV

Gobustan

Ismi JAHANGIROV

Gobustan

Aygun JAHANGIROVA Gobustan

Aziza JAHANGIROVA

Gobustan

(DOBs not specified)

Elchin SADIGOV

Several decisions of Gobustan municipality and Gobustan District Executive Authority

Plot of land in Gobustan district

I: No compensation

CD: Another plot of land

Gobustan District Court, 03/12/2008

Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 27/12/2010

Supreme Court, 11/05/2011

2

73533/11*

09/11/2011

Tofig ABDULLAYEV

Gobustan

Namig ALKISHIYEV

Gobustan

Leyla NOVRUZOVA Gobustan

Gizilli SULEYMANOVA Gobustan

Elman MAMMADOV Gobustan

Mirali SHIKHALIYEV Gobustan

(DOBs not specified)

Elchin SADIGOV

Several decisions of Gobustan municipality and Gobustan District Executive Authority

Plots of land in Gobustan district

I: No compensation

CD: Other plots of land

Gobustan District Court, 03/12/2008

Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 27/12/2010

Supreme Court, 10/05/2011

3

17894/13

07/02/2013

Akbar GASIMOV

1965Salyan

Fariz NAMAZLI

Azeryolservis OJSC

Act of 16 June 2009 of the Commission established by the head of the Salyan District Executive Authority

Purpose: Construction of Baku- Astara highway.

Plot of land in Salyan district

I: AZN 2,354.4

Salyan District Court, 06/04/2011

Shirvan Court of Appeal, 12/04/2012

Supreme Court, 07/08/2012

4

65356/13

04/10/2013

Shahin SULEYMANOV

1961Salyan

Fariz NAMAZLI

Azeryolservis OJSC

Act of 16 June 2009 of the Commission established by the head of the Salyan District Executive Authority

Purpose: reconstruction of Baku- Astara highway.

Plot of land in Salyan district

I: AZN 410.4

Salyan District Court, 06/04/2011

Shirvan Court of Appeal, 18/10/2012

Supreme Court, 04/04/2013

5

65895/13

07/10/2013

Bahadur IBRAHIMOV

1961Baku

No representative

Azeryolservis OJSC

Presidential order of 08/07/2008 no 2930

Purpose: reconstruction of Baku- Alat highway.

Non-residential property in Sabail square

I: AZN 28,080

CD: AZN 19,770 (in addition to I)

Sabail District Court, 28/09/2012

Baku Court of Appeal, 03/04/2013

Supreme Court, 02/07/2013

6

15435/14*

28/11/2013

Kaspi-Merkuri Firm

Mukhtar MUSTAFAYEV

Commission led by the deputy head of the Nasimi District Executive Authority

Act of 22/11/2007

Purpose: improvement of transport system

Plot of land in Baku (near 3 rd microdistrict circle) and a non-residential property

I: No compensation

CD: AZN 784,700

Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 06/10/2011

Baku Court of Appeal, 11/12/2012

Supreme Court , 20/06/2013

7

45751/14

20/05/2014

Rafiga AFANDIYEVA

1941Baku

No representative

Presidential order of 18/03/2011 Baku City Executive Authority

Order of 26/04/2011 no 199

Purpose: construction of B-3 metro station

3 rd Alatava street, house no. 64

I: AZN 141,401

Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 08/05/2013

Baku Court of Appeal, 30/07/2013

Supreme Court, 13/12/2013

8

52999/14*

07/07/2014

Fuad ZAKIYEV

1949Baku

Shafa JAMALZADE

Baku City Executive Authority

Order of 17/07/2009 no. 279

Narimanov District Executive Authority

Order of 21/07/2009 no. 254

Purpose: landscaping for Heydar Aliyev Centre

H. Aliyev avenue 73/3 apt. no. 17

I: a new flat

Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 12/03/2013

Baku Court of Appeal, 31/07/2013

Supreme Court, 5/12/2013 (served on 08/01/2014)

9

60545/14*

25/08/2014

Malik KARIMOV

1960Baku

Yashar AGAZADEH

Baku City Executive Authority

Order of 26/04/2011 no. 199 Purpose: construction of B-3 metro station

3 rd Alatava street, house no. 6 V

I: AZN 51,942

Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 07/08/2013

Baku Court of Appeal, 12/11/2013

Supreme Court, 27/02/2014

10

6250/15

19/01/2015

Mammadaga SAMADOV

1944Baku

No representative

Sabail District Executive Authority

Notice of 12/04/2012

Purpose: landscaping/renovation of the Buruq street

Buruq street 32, apt. no. 2

I: AZN 21,378

Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, 17/09/2013

Baku Court of Appeal, 18/02/2014

Supreme Court, 17/09/2014

11

7637/15

29/01/2015

Dilara NAJAFOVA

1958Baku

Shafa JAMALZADE

Sabail District Executive Authority

Notice of 12/04/2012

Purpose: landscaping/renovation of the Buruq street

Buruq street, house no. 7

I: AZN 66,175

Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 16/10/2012

Baku Court of Appeal, 08/01/2014

Supreme Court, 19/06/2014 (served on 07/08/2014)

12

11431/15

27/02/2015

Suraya AYVAZOVA

1956Baku

Agaveys

SHAHVERDI

Narimanov District Executive Authority

Purpose: removal of obstacles for the administrative building

M. Senani , house no. 21 and attached land

I: No compensation

CD: AZN 36,000

Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, 15/01/2014

Baku Court of Appeal, 17/07/2014

Supreme Court, 06/11/2014

13

15905/15*

24/03/2015

Merkuriy -R Ltd

Famil MAMMADOV

Presidential order of 01/02/2006 no. 1255

Purpose: improvement of transport system

Plot of land in Baku (near Azizbeyov metro station) and a non-residential property

I: No compensation

CD: AZN 1,431,000

Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, 01/07/2011

Baku Court of Appeal, 14/03/2014

Supreme Court, 24/09/2014

Menu

JAHANGIROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN and 12 other applications

JAHANGIROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN and 12 other applications

LEXI