AKHUNDOVA v. AZERBAIJAN and 6 other applications

Published on 10 November 2025

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 13864/18
Lida AKHUNDOVA against Azerbaijan
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 21 October 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The present applications are lodged in connection with the expropriation of the applicants’ houses or flats (“the properties”) by the State authorities.

The facts of the present applications are similar in several respects to those in Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 37706/17 and 5 others, 31 August 2023).

On 12 December 2013 the head of the Baku City Executive Authority issued an order on the basis of which the buildings and houses located in several streets in Baku were to be resettled for the purpose of construction and landscaping works in connection with improvement of road-traffic infrastructure. The implementation of the order was assigned to the Yasamal District Executive Authority (“the YDEA”).

On 11 November 2015 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted decision no. 358, on the basis of which the YDEA was appointed as the State body acquiring the properties in the area in question for the purpose of construction of roads and other communication lines of State importance. By the same order the Cabinet of Ministers also instructed the YDEA to carry out preparatory measures for acquisition of properties for State needs and to present relevant proposals.

On various dates the authorities demolished the applicants’ properties. Some applicants, mainly after the demolition of their properties, signed contracts of sale with the YDEA and received compensation.

On various dates the applicants lodged complaints against the YDEA or the YDEA lodged complaints against the applicants with Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 or the Yasamal District Court.

On various dates (see the appended table), the domestic courts granted the YDEA’s claims and dismissed the applicants’ complaints in full or in part, finding that the expropriation and eviction of the applicants and the YDEA’s actions had been lawful and the amount of compensation had been adequate. The courts also held that the contracts of sale had been concluded voluntarily and in accordance with the law.

All applicants complain that the expropriation of their properties amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and that the amount of compensation paid for the properties was not adequate. The applicants in applications nos. 13864/18, 18035/18 and 24368/18 complain additionally that they were not paid compensation for the land underlying and/or attached to their properties.

The applicants, except the applicant in application no. 29654/18, also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that unlawful demolition of their properties and their unlawful eviction amounted to a violation of their right to respect for their home.

All applicants further complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings in question were not fair; in particular, that the domestic courts delivered unreasoned judgments by failing to properly verify the compliance of the interference with their rights with the applicable domestic legislation.

COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants been 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 to the Convention?

In particular, what were the substantive and procedural conditions required by the applicable law for the expropriation to be lawful, and were those conditions complied with in the present cases (see Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37706/17 and 5 others, §§ 45-54, 31 August 2023)?

If the interference was lawful, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

2.  Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment respected (see Mazahir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39331/09, §§ 33-36, 2 April 2020, and Aykhan Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 43467/06, §§ 86-88, 1 June 2023)?

The parties are requested to provide, where relevant and available, necessary documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, in addition to the documents which have already been sent to the Court.

CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1.  In respect of applications nos. 13864/18, 18022/18, 18035/18, 24368/18, 43318/18 and 53146/18:

Has there been 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 (compare Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, §§ 127-29, 22 October 2015)?

2.  In respect of applications nos. 13864/18, 18035/18 and 24368/18:

Has there been a breach of the applicants’ property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of expropriation of the land plots underlying and/or attached to their properties? In particular, did the applicants have a sufficient proprietary interest in the land for it to qualify as their “possession” (see Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 76254/11, §§ 76-77, 29 January 2015)? Were the applicants paid any compensation for the land underlying and/or attached to their properties, and if yes, in what amount?

APPENDIX