Communicated on 11 October 2017
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 22619/14
Alif AHMADOV and others
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 6 March 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals who live in Baku. Their particulars are set out in the Appendix. The first two applicants are spouses. The third and fourth applicants are their children. They are represented before the Court by Mr E. Abbasov, a lawyer practising in Baku.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In 1977 the first applicant purchased a house in Baku from a certain E.L. and lived there from 1979 together with the second and third applicants. The fourth applicant lived there from 1982. According to the technical passport issued by the Baku City Council in 1963, the house was built in 1938.
On an unspecified date in 2012 the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) lodged a claim with the Sabunchu District Court against the applicants, seeking demolition of the house at the applicants’ expense because they had unlawfully built it on State-owned land allocated to SOCAR in 1963.
On 25 January 2012 the Sabunchu District Court allowed SOCAR’s claim.
The applicants appealed, arguing that they had been living there for more than thirty years without any objection by the authorities, that the house had been built in 1938, long before they had started living there, and that they had no other place to live. They further argued that SOCAR had been aware of this house and had recognised their ownership as it had on several occasions rejected the first applicant’s applications for housing (he had been an employee of SOCAR for thirty-six years) on the grounds that he already owned the house in question.
On 19 April 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 6 September 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, reiterating the first-instance court’s reasoning.
At the time of lodging the application, the house had not been demolished.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain that the court order for the demolition of their house without compensation and at their expense was in breach of their rights as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
2. They also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the demolition order violated their right to respect for their home.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the applicants deprived of their 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, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?
2. Was there an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Was the decision-making process of the domestic courts such as to afford due respect to the applicants’ interests as protected under Article 8 of the Convention?
3. At the time the house was constructed, what was the legal status of the land on which it was located? When did the State authorities first become aware that the house existed? When did the State authorities first raise an objection in respect of the applicants’ house? Were the applicants registered as living at the house and, if so, by which authority? Since the lodging of the present application, has the house been demolished in accordance with the relevant domestic court decisions, and if so, when?
4. The parties are requested to provide, where relevant and available, the requisite documentary evidence in support of their replies.
Appendix
No.
Applicant name
Birth year
Alif AHMADOV
1956
Nabika AHMADOVA
1958
Ruslan AHMADOV
1978
Ibrahim AHMADOV
1982
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy