Published on 5 January 2026
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 26910/18
Fadail ABBASOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 5 June 2018
communicated on 8 December 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged interference by the “Azerenerji” OSJC (“the Azerenerji”), a State-owned energy company, with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his property – a plot of land to which he has had an ownership title since 2011.
The applicant lodged a civil claim with the Absheron District Court against the Azerenerji, requesting the court to declare unlawful the erection of electric power lines, without his consent, over the plot of land in his possession, and to award compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. In its turn, the Azerenerji lodged a counterclaim, seeking, inter alia, invalidation of the purchase contracts concerning the plots of land located in the area around the electrical power network and the applicant’s title to the land.
By a judgment of 26 October 2015, the Absheron District Court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim. The court held that the applicant’s land was located in the protection zone of the electrical power network and that he had failed to provide evidence demonstrating that he had sustained pecuniary damage as a result of the respondent’s actions. The applicant appealed against the judgment, arguing that he was unable to use his property due to the legal prohibition of constructing private houses in the protection zone of the power network. He further stated that he had acquired title to the plot of land prior to the respondent’s construction of power infrastructure in the vicinity, including the electric power lines over his property. The appellate court held that a plot of land had been allocated to the Azerenerji in 2004 for construction of an electrical power network, long before the land in question, which was situated in its protection zone, had been acquired by the applicant. By a final judgment of 31 October 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains about the allegedly unlawful interference with his right of property.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of that provision? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V, and Bērziņš and Others v. Latvia, no. 73105/12, § 107, 21 September 2021)?
The parties are requested to submit information about any subsequent factual developments in the case, and relevant documentary evidence supporting their submissions (in particular, expert reports, municipal orders concerning the allocation of land to the Azerenerji and to the individuals from whom the applicant purchased the plots, contracts of sale for the plots of land in question, correspondence addressed to the municipality by the Azerenerji regarding restrictions on allocating land to individuals in proximity to the electrical power network, and any other related documentation).