FIRST SECTION

Application no. 29674/07 Mehriban ABDULLAYEVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 18 June 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Mehriban Abdullayeva, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1973 and lives in Baku . She was represented before the Court by Mr A. Aliyev, a lawyer practising in Baku .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 2002 the applicant purchased a flat in Baku in a location near the Tezepir Mosque. According to the applicant, the total surface area of the premises that she had purchased constituted 84 sq. m., with a habitable area of only 17.6 sq. m.

In 2004 the applicant carried out some renovation work, which resulted in some of the total area being transformed into new habitable rooms. According to the applicant, following the renovation work the total surface area remained the same, while the habitable area increased to 33.6 sq. m.

On 7 March 2005 the Head of Yasamal District Executive Authority issued an order recognising the fact that additional habitable rooms had been built in the applicant ’ s property and requested the Baku City Department of Technical Inventory and Registration of Property Rights to make relevant changes to the technical registration of the flat.

In July 2006 the Tezepir Mosque lodged an action against the applicant with the Yasamal District Court, asking that the applicant be dispossessed of her ownership rights to the flat in exchange for monetary compensation, and be evicted from the flat. The Tezepir Mosque claimed that the area where the building was located was within the area of works involving the restoration and development of the mosque complex, and that the applicant and her family were the only residents who had refused to relinquish their flat in exchange for compensation offered to them. The Tezepir Mosque was ready to pay 100,000 United States dollars (USD) in compensation.

During the hearing, the representative of the Tezepir Mosque argued that the market price of comparable habitable premises was USD 500 per sq. m., and that the applicant was entitled to be paid only for the habitable area of her flat (33.6 sq. m.). It appears that, in support of this claim, he submitted copies of some sale announcements published in unidentified issues of the local newspaper. The applicant argued that her flat ’ s total area consisted of a total of 84 sq. m., that the market value of comparable flats was USD 3,000 per sq. m., and that she would sell her flat only if she was paid USD 252,000.

The Yasamal District Court noted that, according to Article 157.9 of the Civil Code, private owners could be dispossessed of their ownership rights for State and public requirements, in exchange for compensation. It further noted, without citing any specific documents, that since 1986 the “relevant authorities” had assigned the territory comprising the plot of land where the applicant ’ s building was located to the Tezepir Mosque for construction of a student dormitory for the mosque ’ s school, a museum and other buildings.

In deciding the amount of compensation, the court found that the applicant ’ s premises had an area of 33.6 sq. m. It further took note of the Tezepir Mosque ’ s submissions that, despite the fact that the applicant had purchased a flat which was located on land already allocated to the Mosque and that she had subsequently carried out renovation and construction work in the flat “without obtaining rights to the land” and “without authorisation”, the Mosque had offered to pay her USD 100,000, an amount which exceeded the flat ’ s market value. The court considered that the proposed amount of compensation was reasonable.

By a judgment of 2 August 2006, the Yasamal District Court revoked the applicant ’ s title to the flat, ordered the Tezepir Mosque to pay her the equivalent of USD 100,000 in Azerbaijani manats, and ordered the eviction of the applicant and her family from the flat. By a separate decision delivered on the same day, the Yasamal District Court ordered the immediate execution of the judgment.

The applicant appealed, claiming that the revocation of her title was unlawful.

By a judgment of 27 September 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the Yasamal District Court ’ s judgment of 2 August 2006, relying on essentially the same reasoning. In addition, the Court of Appeal referred to a decision by the Azerbaijan SSR Soviet of Ministers dated 22 May 1986, concerning renovation work on the territory of the Tezepir Mosque and relocation of people residing in that area to other accommodation. It also noted, without referring to any specific decisions, that subsequently the Baku City Executive Committee and the Baku City Executive Authority had issued several other decisions on continuation of the renovation work on that territory and “gradual relocation” of the area ’ s residents.

The applicant appealed. On 27 December 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ’ judgments.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 157.9 of the Civil Code provided as follows at the relevant time:

“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, only in cases permitted by law, by a decision of the relevant authority [the Cabinet of Ministers], and only subject to prior payment of compensation in an amount corresponding to its market value”.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she was unlawfully deprived of her property.

QUESTIONS

Was the applicant deprived of her possession in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, what law served as a basis for the deprivation and did its conditions apply to the applicant ’ s situation in the present case? Was the deprivation justified by the public interest? Did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?