Communicated on 5 January 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 9437/12 Sayyara AHMADOVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 24 January 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sayyara Ahmadova , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Baku. She is represented before the Court by Ms S. Aliyeva , a lawyer practising in Baku.

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

On 21 July 2007 the applicant purchased a house in the Sabail District of Baku from a person who lived there before. Since then, she lived in the house with her daughter. The house had three rooms and a total area of 60 sq. m. The applicant received and paid electricity, gas and telephone bills.

On 28 September 2010 Azneft Production Union, a subsidiary of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR), lodged a court action against the applicant, seeking the applicant ’ s and her family members ’ eviction from the house and the demolition of the house at the applicant ’ s expense on the ground that it was an unauthorised construction built unlawfully on the State-owned industrial land assigned to SOCAR for petroleum operations. In support of its claim, Azneft relied on the 1962 decision of the Executive Committee of the Baku City People ’ s Deputies (predecessor of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”)) assigning the land to Azneft for petroleum operations, and the map of the land in question approved on 17 December 2008 by the Main Department of Architecture and Town-Planning of the BCEA. Azneft argued that, under domestic law, land designated for industrial operations could not be used for construction of residential buildings, that the applicant did not have any construction permits or ownership documents relating to the land or the house, and that therefore the house was a squatter building.

By a judgment of 16 December 2010 the Sabail District Court upheld the claim and ordered the eviction of the applicant and her family members and the demolition of the house at her expense, finding that it was an unauthorised construction and that, under the domestic law, squatted land was to be returned to the lawful possessor without any compensation for any expenses incurred by the squatter during the unlawful use of the land.

The applicant appealed, noting that she had purchased the house from another person and had been living there for several years without any challenge by the authorities, that there were other residential buildings in the area and new residential buildings were under construction, that she had been registered as a resident in the house by the relevant authorities, that she had been paying all utility bills on the basis of the utility meters installed by the relevant utility companies, and that the part of the land assigned to Azneft where her house was located had been taken back from Azneft by the BCEA decision of 29 July 1999.

On 30 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s judgment, agreeing with the latter ’ s reasoning.

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

On 25 August 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ’ judgments.

At the time of lodging of the application, the applicant ’ s house was not yet demolished.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains the judicial order on demolition of her house without compensation and at her expense was in breach of her rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the eviction order had violated her right to respect for her 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 her 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 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?

3. When was the house in question originally constructed? Was there any construction documentation in respect of the house (such as a technical passport or an architectural plan)? When was it connected to utility lines? Had any property taxes been paid in respect of the house? When and by what authority was the postal address assigned to the house? Was the applicant registered as a resident in the house and, if so, by what authority? When did SOCAR, Azneft or the State authorities first become aware of the existence of the house? Following the introduction of the present application, has the house been demolished in accordance with the relevant domestic judicial decisions and, if so, when? The parties are requested to provide, where relevant and available, necessary documentary evidence in support of their answers to the above questions.

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

5. The applicant is requested to submit a copy of the purchase contract of 21 July 2007.