Communicated on 13 December 2017
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 53957/12
Latif AHMADOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 9 August 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Latif Ahmadov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1962 and lives in Sumgayit. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Gasimli, a lawyer practising in Sumgayit.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant had a 50% share in the ownership of a wedding palace (“the property”) in Sumgayit.
From 28 August to 23 October 2007 the applicant was travelling outside Azerbaijan.
On 4 September 2007 the applicant’s nephew S.F. concluded a loan agreement with a private bank, T.
On 4 September 2007 the applicant’s brother, Y.A., acting on the basis of a power of attorney (“the POA”) dated 30 August 2007 allegedly issued by the applicant in Azerbaijan, concluded a mortgage agreement with T. in respect of the loan agreement of 4 September 2007.
On 4 March 2009 S.F. and T. concluded a second loan agreement. On 4 March 2009 Y.A. and T. amended the mortgage agreement to state that it also covered the loan agreement of 4 March 2009.
On 29 July 2010 the applicant lodged a claim with the Sumgayit City Court against T., challenging the validity of the POA, the mortgage agreement and the amendment to it and arguing that Y.A. had acted on the basis of a forged power of attorney as he had been abroad on the date when the POA had been issued.
On 20 August 2010 T. lodged a claim with the Sumgayit City Court against the applicant and S.F., arguing that the latter had defaulted under the loan agreements and requesting the sale of the applicant’s property by auction in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement.
On 19 April 2011 the Sumgayit District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim and upheld T.’s claim, finding that, even though the POA had not been issued by the applicant, he “could not have been unaware that his property had been mortgaged”.
On 6 September 2011 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal and on 9 February 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, reiterating the first-instance court’s reasoning.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the failure by the State to protect his property interests in relation to the sale of his real property by auction in accordance with a mortgage agreement concluded between third parties on the basis of a falsified power of attorney allegedly issued by him.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the alleged failure of the State to protect the applicant’s property interests in relation to the sale of his real property through auction pursuant to a mortgage agreement concluded between third parties on the basis of a falsified power of attorney?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy