Communicated on 8 November 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no 7858/09 Balaja ABDULLAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 28 January 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Balaja Abdullayev , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1959 and lives in Baku.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 17 August 1993 the applicant moved to Baku as an internally displaced person following the occupation of the Jabrayil District, where he used to live, by Armenian armed forces.

Sometime during that year he built a house in the Sabunchu District of Baku without a construction permit or other authorisation, and from then lived in the house with six members of his family. The house had a total area of 127 sq. m. The applicant received and paid the electricity, gas and land tax bills.

On an unspecified date in 2007 the Sabunchu District Executive Authority applied to the courts for demolition of the house at the applicant ’ s expense because it was an unlawful construction on State-owned land located within a protection zone containing high-voltage electricity cables.

On 11 January 2008 the Sabunchu District Court ordered the demolition, finding that it was an unauthorised construction and that, under domestic law, squatted land had to be returned to the legal owner without any compensation for losses incurred by the squatter during his unlawful use of the land.

The applicant appealed, arguing that he had been living there for fifteen years without any objection by the authorities, that there were hundreds of other residential houses in the area, and that he had been paying the utility bills based on readings from the meters installed by the relevant utility companies.

On 16 May 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s judgment, agreeing with its reasoning.

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, reiterating his arguments.

On 17 October 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ’ judgments.

At the time of lodging the application, the applicant ’ s house had not been demolished.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that the court order for the demolition of his house without compensation and at his expense was in breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2. He also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the demolition order violated his right to respect for his home.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?

2. Was the house in question the applicant ’ s “home”, within the meaning of Article 8? If so, has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his 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 was such as to afford due respect to the applicant ’ s interests protected under Article 8 of the Convention?

3. When was the house connected to the utilities? During which period was land tax paid in respect of the house? Was a postal address assigned to the house and, if so, by what authority? Was the applicant registered as living at the house and, if so, by which authority? When did the State authorities first become aware that the house existed? Since the lodging of the present application, has the house been demolished in accordance with the relevant domestic court decisions, and if so, when? The parties are requested to provide, where relevant and available, necessary documentary evidence in support of their replies.

4. What was the legal status of the land on which the house was located at the time of its construction and the court order for its demolition? The parties are requested to provide relevant documentary evidence in support of their submissions in this respect.