ABDULLAYEV AND MURADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 674/15
Jahangir ABDULLAYEV and Rauf MURADOV
against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 June 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 674/15) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 December 2014 by two Azerbaijani nationals, Mr Jahangir Nizami oglu Abdullayev (Cahangir Nizami oğlu Abdullayev – “the first applicant”) and Mr Rauf Arif oglu Muradov (Rauf Arif oğlu Muradov – “the second applicant”), who were born in 1975 and 1962 respectively and live in Baku, and were represented by Mr F. Agayev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The application concerns the applicants’ complaints of the allegedly unlawful demolition of their properties.

2.  The first applicant owned flat no. 5, with a surface area of 28.5 sq. m, and the second applicant owned flat no. 21, with a surface area of 85.2 sq. m (“the properties”) at 61 Mikayil Useynov Avenue in Baku.

3.  On 9 March 2010 the head of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) issued order no. 85 on 9 March 2010 on the basis of which residential and non-residential buildings located on Mikayil Useynov Avenue were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing a shopping centre. The demolition of the properties and the relocation of the residents on the basis of mutual consent were to be carried out at the expense of the K. cooperative, a subsidiary of company A, a private company.

4.  Starting in the summer of 2010, the employees of company A and/or the K. cooperative instructed the residents in that area to vacate their properties in exchange for either (i) compensation of 1,500 to 2,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per square metre of their respective property or (ii) a new property in another part of the city in buildings built by company A.

5.  Most of the residents took the offer and vacated their properties. It appears from the case file that the applicants did not live in the flats in question at the relevant time. On an unspecified date in April 2011 the first applicant received AZN 59,000 (approximately 51,400 euros (EUR) at the relevant time) from company A as compensation for his property, signed a statement confirming receipt of the funds and issued a power of attorney to the representative of company A to take all the necessary steps to sell, exchange or mortgage his flat. According to the second applicant, he received AZN 126,000 from company A as compensation for his demolished property. However, it appears from the domestic court decisions that on 26 April 2011 L.K., the second applicant’s mother-in-law (who was living in the second applicant’s flat), acting on the basis of a power of attorney issued by the second applicant received AZN 141,000 (approximately EUR 122,500 at the relevant time) from company A as compensation, signed a statement confirming receipt and issued a power of attorney to the representative of company A to take all the necessary steps to sell, exchange or mortgage his flat. On 10 June 2011, employees of company A and/or the K. cooperative completed the demolition of the applicants’ properties.

6.  On 20 September 2012 the applicants jointly lodged a claim with the Sabail District Court against the BCEA, the State Committee on Property Issues (“the SCPI”), company A, the K. cooperative and the Sabail District Police Office as defendants and the Ministry of Emergency Situations as a third party. The applicants asked the court to declare the order of 9 March 2010 invalid. They also asked for the restoration of the demolished properties and awards of various amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

7.  After several proceedings concerning territorial jurisdiction and other admissibility issues, on 23 January 2014 the applicants again lodged the same claim with the Sabail District Court against the same defendants.

8.  On 23 September 2014 the Sabail District Court split the applicants’ claims into two separate sets of proceedings and forwarded to Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 the claims against the BCEA, the SCPI and the Sabail District Police Office. The applicants did not appeal against that decision.

9.  On 11 December 2014 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 declared the claims inadmissible, finding that the applicants had failed to present their claims to the defendants prior to lodging those claims with the court, as required under domestic law. The applicants did not appeal against that decision.

10.  On 20 February 2015 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicants’ claims against company A and the K. cooperative (the infringement of property rights and awards of damage), finding that company A had reached an agreement with the applicants and had paid them appropriate compensation, and that the applicants had failed to prove that they had agreed to such compensation under duress. The applicants appealed.

11.  On 13 May and on 8 October 2015 respectively the Baku Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals.

12.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had been unlawfully deprived of their properties. The applicants further complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention of a violation of their right to a reasoned judgment and their right to respect for their home.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

13.  The Government argued that the plots of land in question did not constitute the applicants’ “possessions”. The Government further argued that the applicants could not claim to be victims of a violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because the domestic courts had awarded them adequate compensation. In their further observations, the Government submitted, for the first time, that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of their complaints.

14.  The applicants argued that the plots of land underlying/attached to the building had been jointly owned by them and that they had had a legitimate expectation to acquire title to the land free of charge. They further submitted that they had not exhausted the formal remedies available against the administrative authorities, as their complaints had had almost no chance of success and could have prolonged the proceedings.

15.  It is undisputed that the applicants owned the properties in accordance with the ownership documents issued to them (see paragraph 2 above).

16.  The second applicant asserted that the total surface area of his flat had been 94 sq. m. However, no documentary evidence was produced in that regard before either the domestic courts or the Court. It cannot therefore be established that the second applicant’s claims in respect of the total surface area of his property beyond the size mentioned in the ownership documents amounted to his “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It follows that the part of the complaint related to that claim is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

17.  The Court further notes that the properties in question were flats situated in an apartment building. The Court has already held that the land underlying such buildings was in the common, shared ownership of the owners of the apartments in that building, who did not have the right to divide in kind or sell their shares or to perform other acts aimed at the separate alienation of their respective shares, and that those shares could not be regarded as separate “possessions” as such because they were attached to an apartment in the building of which they formed a part, thus constituting one whole property (see Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37706/17 and 5 others, § 38, 31 August 2023). Therefore, the applicants’ complaint concerning the claims in respect of the plots of land underlying/attached to the building is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

18.  As to the remaining objections raised by the Government (see paragraph 13 above), while noting that the Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies for the first time in their further observations, the Court does not find it necessary to examine them, as the complaint is, in any event, inadmissible for the following reasons.

19.  While the domestic courts split the applicants’ claims and forwarded the claims against the administrative authorities to Baku Administrative‑Economic Court No. 1, the applicants chose not to appeal against that decision and not to pursue those proceedings (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above).

20.  The Court further notes that, as established by the domestic courts in the civil proceedings, and as it appears from the relevant documents in the case file, the applicants received compensation from company A, signing the relevant documents, before the demolition of their flats (contrast, for example, Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, §§ 65 and 140, 22 October 2015) and they failed to provide any evidence that they had done so under duress (see paragraph 10 above). In this connection, the Court also notes that the applicants initiated the domestic proceedings approximately sixteen months after the receipt of the compensation (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above). The Court further notes that while the applicants contested the adequacy of the amounts paid to them, they never submitted an expert report or any other document in support of their claim before the domestic courts (compare Gasimov and Suleymanov v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), nos. 17894/13 and 65356/13, § 15, 21 January 2025). The applicants thus failed to substantiate that the compensation received at the relevant time was inadequate or that their property rights were otherwise infringed.

21.  It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

22.  The Court reiterates that the concept of “home” within the meaning of Article 8 is not limited to premises which are lawfully occupied or which have been lawfully established. It is an autonomous concept which does not depend on classification under domestic law. Whether or not particular premises constitute a “home” which attracts the protection of Article 8 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan, no. 9437/12, § 41, 18 November 2021).

23.  As mentioned above, it appears from the case file that the applicants were not living in the flats in question at the time of the events described above (see paragraph 5 above) and it has not been argued nor demonstrated either that they had been staying in the flats in question occasionally. In these circumstances, the Court does not find it established that the applicants retained sufficient and continuous links with the properties in question for them to be considered their home (compare Nasirov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 58717/10, § 75, 20 February 2020, and Hasanali Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 42858/11, § 38, 9 June 2022, with further references).

24.  It therefore rejects the applicants’ complaint as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

25.  As to the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 12 above), in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the domestic courts’ decisions do not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable and that there is nothing to suggest that the proceedings were unfair.

26.  Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 17 July 2025.

 Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
 Deputy Registrar President