Communicated on 13 February 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 44083/09 Elman Damir Oglu DAMIROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 14 July 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Elman Damirov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Baku .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

Before Azerbaijan gained independence from the USSR in 1991, T. and A. received a permit to build two adjacent temporar y garage s in Baku (one garage each) . In 2005 T. and A. signed “ authori ty forms” ( etibarnamə ) by which they transferred their rights over the garages to the applicant . The authority forms were registered with a notary under the numbers 7E 7567 and 7568.

On 9 June 2005 , on the basis of the above-mentioned authority forms, the H ead of the Khatai District Executive Authority (“KDEA”) “documented” (registered) the garages in the name of the applicant ( adına sənədləşdirilsin ) and gave permission to the applicant to rebuild them in stone bricks. The applicant reconstructed the garages , in accordance with the construction plan which was approved by the KDEA, and apparently merged the two garage buildings into one, and started to use the new building for commercial purposes.

On 17 June 2005 the applicant signed a contract with the municipality by which the applicant r ented the land on which the garage stood until 31 December 2005 .

On 9 June 2006 the State Registry of Immovable Property issued a “technical passport” ( texniki pasport ) in the name of the applicant as the owner of the garage ( qarajın sahibi ).

On 10 July 2006 , allegedly without any warning , the applicant ' s garage was demolished by order of the H ead of the Baku City Executive Authority (“BCEA”) . According to the applicant , when he claimed damages from the BCEA for the demolition, he was informed that the garag e had been destroyed in order to build a road and, therefore , he was not to be compensated.

The applicant lodged an action against the BCEA and KDEA before the Khatai District Court requesting compensation for material damage.

On 10 October 2006 the Khatai District Court granted the applicant ' s claim against the BCEA, ordering it to pay the applicant 35,000 new Azerbaijani manats in compensation, and dismissed the claim against the KDEA . The BCEA appealed.

On 18 December 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court ' s judgment and dismissed the applicant ' s claim. On 10 July 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the Baku Court of Appeal ' s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 23 October 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the 10 October 2006 judgment and again dismissed the applicant ' s claim. D eclaring that the garage in question was an “ unlawful construction ” , t he court based its judgment primarily on the grounds that the initial permits to build the garages , given to T. and A. before 1991, had had a temporary nature; that the permit to reconstruct the garage s had been given to the applicant by the KDEA without coordination with ( permission of ) the BCEA; that the “ technical passport ” was not a document determining rights ( hüquq müəyyənedici ) ; and that the land on which the garage stood was owned by the S tate.

On 26 February 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in cassation by the a pplicant.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 29 § IV of the Constitution provides as follows:

“No one shall be deprived of his or her property without a court decision. Total confiscation of property is not permitted. Alienation of property for State needs may be permitted only on condition of prior and fair compensation for its value”.

Article 157.9 of the Civil Code, as amended on 1 June 2004 and applicable at the material time, provided:

“Private property can be alienated by the State if required by the State or public necessity, for the purposes of building roads or other communication lines, delimiting the State border strip or constructing the [State] defence facilities, by a decision of the relevant authority [the Cabinet of Ministers], only in cases permitted by law, and subject to prior payment of compensation in the amount corresponding to its market value”.

Pursuant to Article 2.4 of the State Registry of Immovable Property Act , disputes over State registration of property rights are resolved through court proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his property rights were violated owing to the destruction of his garage by the authorities and unfair decisions of the domestic courts .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the property in question constitute the applicant ' s “possession”, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, h as there been an interference with the applicant ' s peaceful enjoyment of his possession , within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, w as the applicant d eprived of his 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? If so, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

2. How could T. and A. ' s original rights to the garages be qualified under Azerbaijani law, before the transfer of those rights to the applicant? What was the status in the Azerbaijani legislation and practice of the “authority forms” ( etibarnamə ), registered with a notary, by which T. and A. transferred their rights over their garages to the applicant? What was the status in the Azerbaijani legislation and practice of the “technical passport” issued by the State Registry of Immovable Property in the name of the applicant? In particular, did the possessor of a “technical passport” of immovable property have a right to claim an ownership certificate for that property and, if so, under which conditions?

3. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the domestic proceedings, including the applicant ' s judicial complaints and appeals.