Communicated on 23 March 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 50342/15 Irina KAPELKO against Azerbaijan and 2 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. Their particulars and their representatives are indicated in the Appendix.

The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, are similar in some respects to those of the case of Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883/11, 22 October 2015). They may be briefly summarised as follows.

On 24 September 2008 the head of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) issued order no. 511 entitled Construction of a New Park Complex, Relocation of Residential and Non ‑ Residential Accommodation from that Area ( Yeni park kompleksinin salınması , É™razidÉ™ yerləşən yaÅŸayış vÉ™ qeyri-yaÅŸayış sahÉ™lÉ™rinin köçürülmÉ™si haqqında sÉ™rÉ™ncam – hereinafter “ order of 24 September”), on the basis of which the buildings and houses located in the area bounded by Fuzuli , Samed Vurgun , Shamsi Badalbeyli and Topchubashov Streets were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing a new garden-park complex (“the Winter Park”) and the residents were to be relocated.

On 16 February 2011 the head of the BCEA issued a further order no. 76 entitled Relocation of Residential and Non ‑ Residential Accommodation from the Area bounded by Samed Vurgun , Shamsi Badalbeyli , Mirzaga Aliyev , Dilara Aliyeva , Rasul Rza , Shamil Azizbayov , Suleyman Rahimov , Islam Safarli , Tabriz Khalil Rzaoglu and Mirza Ibrahimov Streets for Execution of the Master Plan of Baku City ( Bakı ÅŸÉ™hÉ™rinin BaÅŸ Planının icrasının tÉ™min edilmÉ™si mÉ™qsÉ™dilÉ™ SÉ™mÉ™d VurÄŸun, Şəmsi BÉ™dÉ™lbÉ™yli, MirzaÄŸa Əliyev, DilarÉ™ Əliyeva, RÉ™sul Rza, Åžamil ƏzizbÉ™yov, Süleyman RÉ™himov, Ä°slam SÉ™fÉ™rli, TÉ™briz XÉ™lil Rza oÄŸlu, MirzÉ™ Ä°brahimov küçəlÉ™rinin É™hatÉ™sindÉ™ yerləşən yaÅŸayış vÉ™ qeyri-yaÅŸayış sahÉ™lÉ™rinin köçürülmÉ™si haqqında sÉ™rÉ™ncam – hereinafter “the order of 16 February 2011”), on the basis of which the buildings and houses located in the area bounded by the aforesaid streets were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing the Winter Park and the residents relocated.

The applicants owned houses, flats and non-residential properties (“the properties”) located in the above-mentioned areas.

Starting from the beginning of 2010, the BCEA ’ s employees instructed the residents in that area to leave their properties in exchange for 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (equivalent of EUR 1,429) per sq. m of their properties in compensation. The BCEA offered to make the payments not as compensation for expropriation, but on the basis of contracts of sale, to be concluded between the residents and two individuals, R.K. or Z.I., who were apparently acting on behalf of the BCEA.

Some of the residents accepted the BCEA ’ s offer and left their properties. Following their departure the BCEA started destroying those residents ’ properties; it also completely or partially suspended the provision of utility services to the remaining properties, which rendered the living conditions of the remaining residents very difficult.

On various dates (see Appendix) the BCEA demolished the applicants ’ properties.

On various dates (see Appendix) and after the demolition of their properties, the applicants concluded contracts of sale with Z.I. and received AZN 1,500 per sq. m in respect of their respective properties.

On various dates the applicants each lodged a complaint with either Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 or the Sabail District Court against the BCEA.

They complained of breaches of their property rights, and in particular that the demolition of their properties had been unlawful.

They also complained that the compensation offered or already paid by the BCEA had been too low, stating that the actual market prices of their properties had been much higher. In support of their complaints, the applicants in applications nos. 50342/15 and 52547/15 submitted expert opinions regarding the respective market prices of their properties.

The applicants in applications nos. 52547/15 and 53656/15 also asked the courts to declare unlawful the contracts of sale between them and Z.I. because they had been concluded under duress.

The applicants in applications nos. 50342/15 and 52547/15 also claimed additional compensation in the amount of 20% of the compensation, in accordance with Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007.

The applicant in application no. 50342/15 also claimed additional compensation for expenses arising from the expropriation.

The applicant in application no. 53656/15 also claimed non-pecuniary compensation for the suffering caused to him by the BCEA ’ s unlawful actions.

On various dates (see Appendix), the relevant first-instance courts dismissed the applicants ’ complaints in full or in part, finding that the BCEA ’ s actions had been lawful and that the amount of compensation awarded had been adequate. In respect of the claims regarding the contracts of sale, the courts held that they had been concluded in accordance with the relevant law. The courts accepted only the claims regarding the payment of 20% additional compensation. In respect of application no. 50342/15 the courts also ordered the payment of additional compensation in the amount of AZN 3,000.

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

On various dates (see Appendix) the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed or partly dismissed 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 dismissed the applicants ’ appeals, largely reiterating the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s reasoning .

The judgments have not been enforced in respect of applications nos. 50342/15 and 52547/15.

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 with the applicable domestic legislation.

2. The applicants in applications nos. 50342/15 and 52547/15 also complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the respective judgments of the domestic courts have not been enforced.

3. The applicants complain that the de facto expropriation, by way of demolition, 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 very low .

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided 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 qualified under domestic law (expropriation, nationalisation , confiscation, or other)? What act (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 Baku City Executive Authority ’ s orders of 24 September 2008 and 16 February 2011 and for the other acts and decisions of that authority in the present cases, and did that authority have competence under domestic law to take decisions resulting in the expropriation 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)?

2. 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?

CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTION

In respect of applications nos. 50342/15 and 52547/15:

Was the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

Appendix

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Date of demolition

Date of sale contract

Domestic courts ’ judgments/decisions

50342/15

23/09/2015

Irina KAPELKO BELOUSOVA

1969Baku

Sevinj ALIYEVA

15/07/2013

13/03/2014

Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 29/12/2013

Baku Court of Appeal, 22/05/2014

Supreme Court, 24/12/2014 (delivered on 24/03/2015)

52547/15

14/10/2015

Rahila SULTANOVA

1956Baku

Tofig GURBANOV

1946Baku

Huseyn HUSEYNOV

1944Baku

Sevinj ALIYEVA

unspecified

01/12/2011

06/03/2012

23/11/2011

Sabail District Court, 11/03/2014

Baku Court of Appeal, 15/09/2014

Supreme Court, 13/03/2015 (delivered on 14/04/2015)

53656/15*

23/10/2015

Teyyub GULIYEV

1972Baku

Fuad AGAYEV

unspecified

06/02/2014

Sabail District Court, 15/08/2014

Baku Court of Appeal, 03/12/2014

Supreme Court, 24/04/2015