Communicated on 23 November 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no 77919/11 Ismayil Aliheydar Oglu BAGVANOV against Azerbaijan and 31 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 practising in Azerbaijan (see Appendix for all details).

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 “the order of 24 September 2008”), 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 mentioned streets were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing the Winter Park and the residents were to be relocated.

The applicants had houses, flats and non-residential properties (“the properties”) located in the 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) 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 and also completely or partially suspended provision of utility services to the remaining properties, which made living conditions very difficult for the remaining residents.

On various dates and in some cases after the demolition of the properties by the BCEA (see below), the applicants lodged a complaint with the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, the Nasimi District Court or the Sabail District Court.

They complained of breaches of their property rights, in particular that the order of 24 September 2008 and/or the order of 16 February 2011, the actions of the BCEA ’ s employees seeking to evict them from their properties and the demolition of the properties had been unlawful, and/or asked the court to eliminate the obstacles preventing them from enjoying their ownership rights.

On various dates (see Appendix) and in some cases while the court proceedings were still pending, the BCEA demolished the applicants ’ properties.

On various dates (see Appendix) and mainly after the demolition of their properties, most of the applicants (except the applicants in applications nos. 50513/12, 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13) concluded contracts of sale with R.K. or Z.I. and received AZN 1,500 per sq. m of their respective properties.

On various dates, most of the applicants instituted separate civil proceedings or amended their initial claims, asking the courts to declare unlawful the contracts of sale between them and R.K. or Z.I. because they had been concluded under duress.

They also complained that the compensation offered or already paid by the BCEA had been too low, indicating that the actual market prices of their properties had been much higher. In support of their complaints, some of the applicants submitted expert opinions regarding the market prices of their properties.

The applicants in applications nos. 77919/11, 9310/12, 57685/12, 61516/12, 70719/12, 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13 and 51850/14 also claimed compensation for the land underneath and/or attached to their properties.

The applicants in applications nos. 38244/12, 50513/12, 56371/12, 81494/12 and 5192/13 also claimed compensation for their possessions that had been allegedly damaged or lost during the demolition of their properties.

Some of the applicants also lodged claims in respect of pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage for their suffering as a result of the BCEA ’ s unlawful actions.

The applicants in applications nos. 70719/12, 5192/13, 57130/13, 17453/14, 37721/14, 38220/14, 43224/14, 51850/14, 68452/14, 10266/15, 37345/15, 38009/15 and 35068/16 also claimed additional compensation in the amount of 20% of the money paid to them, in accordance with Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007.

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 the amount of compensation 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.

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 .

In respect of applications nos. 77919/11, 9310/12, 5192/13 and 38220/14, the courts ruled partly in favour of the applicants and ordered compensation in the amount of AZN 1,500 per sq. m to be paid. However, the payments were made not on the basis of the judgments, but on the basis of the contracts of sale concluded between the applicants and R.K. or Z.I.

In respect of application no. 13579/13, the courts ruled partly in favour of the applicants and ordered compensation of AZN 1,500 per sq. m for 9 sq. m area of the property which had not been covered by the contract of sale. The judgment has not been enforced.

The parts of the judgments regarding the 20% additional compensation have not been enforced in respect of applications nos. 5192/13, 17453/14, 38220/14, 43224/14, 51850/14, 68452/14, 10266/15, 37345/15 and 38009/15.

The applicants in applications nos. 50513/12, 73555/12, 81486/12 and 5192/13 have not concluded contracts of sale and for that reason have not been paid any compensation despite the respective judgments in their favour.

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. 50513/12, 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13, 13579/13, 17453/14, 38220/14, 43224/14, 51850/14, 68452/14, 10266/15, 37345/15 and 38009/15 also complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the respective judgments of the domestic courts ’ or part of them have not been enforced.

3. The applicants in applications nos. 9310/12, 30096/12, 38244/12, 44972/12, 56371/12, 57685/12, 61516/12, 66345/12, 70719/12, 81486/12, 81494/12, 5192/13, 13579/13, 57130/13, 25690/14, 37721/14, 43224/14, 51850/14, 68452/14, 76509/14, 10266/15 and 35068/16 complain, under Article 8 of the Convention, that the unlawful demolition of their properties and/or their unlawful eviction amounted to a violation of their rights to respect for their homes.

4. T he applicants in applications nos. 9310/12, 30096/12, 38244/12, 44972/12, 50513/12, 56371/12, 57685/12, 61516/12, 66345/12, 70719/12, 73555/12, 81486/12, 81494/12, 5192/13, 13579/13, 25690/14, 37721/14, 43224/14, 43346/12, 51850/14, 68452/14, 76509/14 and 10266/15 complain, under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that they were not afforded a remedy providing effective protection against the violation of their rights.

5. 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.

6. The applicants in applications nos. 77919/11, 9310/12, 57685/12, 61516/12, 70719/12, 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13 and 51850/14 also complain, u nder Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that they were not paid compensation for the land underneath and/or attached to their properties.

7. The applicants in applications nos. 38244/12, 50513/12, 56371/12, 81494/12 and 5192/13 also complain, u nder Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that they were not paid compensation for their possessions that were allegedly damaged or lost during the demolition of their properties.

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Have the applicants been 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 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 QUESTIONS

1. In respect of applications nos. 50513/12, 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13, 13579/13, 17453/14, 38220/14, 43224/14, 51850/14, 68452/14, 10266/15, 37345/15 and 38009/15:

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

2. In respect of applications nos. 9310/12, 30096/12, 38244/12, 44972/12, 56371/12, 57685/12, 61516/12, 66345/12, 70719/12, 81486/12, 81494/12, 5192/13, 13579/13, 57130/13, 25690/14, 37721/14, 43224/14, 51850/14, 68452/14, 76509/14, 10266/15 and 35068/16:

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?

3. In respect of applications nos. 9310/12, 30096/12, 38244/12, 44972/12, 50513/12, 56371/12, 57685/12, 61516/12, 66345/12, 70719/12, 73555/12, 81486/12, 81494/12, 5192/13, 13579/13, 25690/14, 37721/14, 43224/14, 43346/12, 51850/14, 68452/14, 76509/14 and 10266/15:

Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

4. In respect of applications nos. 77919/11, 9310/12, 57685/12, 61516/12, 70719/12, 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13 and 51850/14:

Were the applicants paid any compensation for the land underneath and/or attached to their properties?

5. In respect of applications nos. 38244/12, 50513/12, 56371/12, 81494/12 and 5192/13:

Were any possessions of the applicants damaged or lost during the demolition of their properties? If so, were the applicants paid any compensation for those possessions?

APPENDIX

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

77919/11

22/11/2011

Ismayil Aliheydar Oglu BAGVANOV

19/08/1956

Baku

Shovket Hasanaga Gizi BAGVANOVA

9310/12*

14/02/2012

Darya GULIYEVA

18/05/1979

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

30096/12

13/04/2012

Hajibaba Javid Oglu RZAYEV

09/09/1962

Gusar

Surat Mashi Oglu MƏMMƏDOV

38244/12*

05/06/2012

Hajibaba Sadig Oglu AZIMOV

01/08/1938

Baku

Jeyhun Hajibaba Oglu AZIMOV

12/07/1971

Baku

Sadig BAGIROV

44972/12*

18/07/2012

Intizar Karim Gizi ALLAHVERDIYEVA

03/02/1953

Baku

Zarifa Karim Gizi ALLAHVERDIYEVA

28/09/1959

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

50513/12

25/07/2012

Lazim Shirali Oglu SHARIFOV

01/08/1954

Baku

Khalid Zakir Oglu BAGIROV

56371/12*

30/08/2012

Parviz Mukhtar Oglu AMIROV

04/11/1969

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

57685/12*

06/09/2012

Minakhanim Agasalim Gizi AZIMOVA

08/06/1946

Khirdalan

Mehriban Imanali Gizi ALIYEVA

20/06/1969

Baku

Valeriya MAHMUDOVA

25/10/1966

Baku

Ruiya MAMMAD

10/03/1957

Baku

Saadat AZIZOVA

20/06/1969

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

61516/12*

24/09/2012

Fuad ALIYEV

04/09/1968

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

66345/12*

28/09/2012

Tahira Atakishi Gizi SALAMOVA

Tahira Atakishi Gizi SALAMOVA

Baku

Samira Rafail Gizi AGAYEVA

70719/12*

16/10/2012

Malik ALIYEV

03/02/1964

Baku

Shafa Mahammadali Gizi CAMALZADƏ

73555/12*

16/11/2012

Yasaman Gurban Gizi KARIMOVA

26/02/1951

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

81486/12*

19/12/2012

Flora Davidovna GADIROVA

21/11/1966

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

81494/12*

20/12/2012

Rukhsara Suleyman Gizi HUSEYNOVA

03/02/1944

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

5192/13*

28/12/2012

Afag Adil Gizi ISMAYILOVA

07/09/1958

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

13579/13*

22/02/2013

Shirinbaji Ibrahim Gizi RZAYEVA

09/06/1953

Baku

Alirza RZA MUKHTAR OGLU

19/07/1976

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

52066/13*

25/07/2013

Tamilla MAMMADOVA

1965Baku

Nadejda SANDLER

1956Baku

Zohra HAJIYEVA

1955Baku

Reyhan HUSEYNOVA

1964Baku

Zaman MAHMUDOV

Baku

Agali KHUDAYEV

1959Baku

Alla FATALIYEVA

1957Baku

Ilgar NOVRUZOV

1959Baku

Bashkhanim ABBASOVA

1948Baku

Shabeyim HUSEYNOVA

1957Baku

Ikmat MIRZAYEV

1960Baku

Fira ILKANAYEVA

1960Baku

Gunel ISMIKHANOVA

1985Baku

Intigam Kamil Oglu ALIYEV

57130/13*

16/08/2013

Famil Aslan Oglu GASIMOV

04/08/1989

Shirvan

Shafa Mahammadali Gizi CAMALZADƏ

12977/14*

25/01/2014

Kamala Muzaffar Gizi HUSEYNOVA

Kamala Muzaffar Gizi HUSEYNOVA

Baku

Mehman Humsi Oglu CƏBRAYILOV

17453/14

22/02/2014

Malik Mukhtar Oglu MUSAYEV

11/04/1960

Baku

Nemat Alish Oglu HEYDƏROV

25690/14*

19/03/2014

Rauf Mammadali Oglu RZAYEV

27/10/1959

Baku

Sevinj Ali Gizi ƏLİYEVA

37721/14*

01/05/2014

Elshad Tofig Oglu MALIKZADE

15/04/1959

Baku

Sevinj Ali Gizi ƏLİYEVA

38220/14

13/05/2014

Malik Mukhtar Oglu MUSAYEV

11/04/1960

Baku

Sadig BAGIROV

43224/14

02/06/2014

Elnur Ibrahim Oglu HUSEYNOV

30/08/1970

Baku

Sevinj Ali Gizi ƏLİYEVA

43346/14

28/05/2014

Imran Kamal Oglu ABDULLAYEV

10/01/1976

Khachmaz

51850/14*

15/07/2014

Lilya Asadulla Gizi ALIYEVA

17/06/1943

Baku

Fuad Arif Oglu AGAYEV

68452/14

11/10/2014

Farruh Ali Oglu KHUDAYAROV

28/07/1947

Baku

Sevinj Ali Gizi ƏLİYEVA

76509/14

25/11/2014

Ayna Alaskar Gizi ALI-ZADE

Baku

Sevinj Ali Gizi ƏLİYEVA

10266/15

18/02/2015

Solmaz Anatoliy Gizi GAFFAROVA

09/09/1957

Baku

Kubra GAFFAROVA

27/02/1990

Baku

Sevinj Ali Gizi ƏLİYEVA

37345/15

15/07/2015

Bashkhanim Shamil Gizi ABBASOVA

01/04/1948

Baku

Sevinj Ali Gizi ƏLİYEVA

38009/15

24/07/2015

Irina SVYATOSLAVSKAYA

07/03/1939

Baku

Sevinj Ali Gizi ƏLİYEVA

35068/16

11/06/2016

Niyazi Ahmad Oglu MAHAMMADI

11/06/1959

Baku

Sevinj Ali Gizi ƏLİYEVA