BAYRAMZADE v. AZERBAIJAN

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 12836/13
Rashid BAYRAMZADE
against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 October 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. 12836/13) 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 15 February 2013 by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Rashid Yashar oglu Bayramzade (Rəşid Yaşar oğlu Bayramzadə – “the applicant”), who was born in 1954, lives in Baku, and was represented by Ms S. Jamalzade, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 6 (right to a reasoned judgment and length of proceedings) and 13 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 inadmissible the complaints under Articles 3 and 6 (concerning independent and impartial tribunal) of the Convention;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case mainly concerns the applicant’s complaint that the demolition of his property had been unlawful and that he had been awarded inadequate compensation by the domestic courts.

2.  The applicant jointly owned an apartment with N., 55 sq. m of which belonged to him, located in Baku.

3.  On 7 January 2002 the Nasimi District Executive Authority (“the NDEA”) granted authorisation to the applicant to rebuild the apartment, without altering the overall dimensions indicated in its “technical passport”, on the grounds that the apartment had been rendered completely uninhabitable by an earthquake.

4.  On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant demolished the apartment and erected an unfinished house measuring 280 sq. m in its place.

5.  On the basis of Order no. 104, issued by the head of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) on 4 March 2003, the A. company was allocated a plot of land, including the part on which the applicant’s house had been built, for the purpose of constructing a residential complex, on condition that the buildings on the plot were demolished and the residents relocated at the A. company’s expense.

6.  According to the applicant, on 28 September 2008 the A. company demolished his house.

7.  On an unspecified date in March 2007 the A. company lodged a claim against the applicant and N. with the Nasimi District Court, asking the court to order their eviction, subject to compensation for the loss of the property.

8.  On 5 May 2007 the applicant lodged a counterclaim, seeking the restoration of his constitutional rights and compensation in the amount of 106,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in respect of pecuniary damage and AZN 20,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

9.  On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant and N. lodged a complaint against the BCEA with the Sabail District Court, asking the court to set aside Order no. 104. By a decision of the court of 11 September 2007, that complaint was joined to the case file before the Nasimi District Court (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above).

10.  On an unspecified date in the course of the judicial proceedings, the A. company and N. withdrew their claims. According to the documents in the case file, the A. company had purchased N.’s share in the apartment for AZN 2,000 per square metre.

11.  By a judgment of 17 March 2008, the Nasimi District Court rejected the applicant’s claims on the grounds that he had failed to substantiate them by providing any evidence that Order no. 104 and the construction work carried out by the A. company in the area had caused material damage to his house.

12.  On 7 October 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court’s judgment, endorsing its reasoning.

13.  On 25 June 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment. The court found that the applicant had demolished his part of the apartment and had erected an unauthorised construction in its place. Referring to Article 180 of the Civil Code, which concerned unauthorised constructions, it held that the applicant had no right of ownership over the property.

14.  On an unspecified date in November 2008 the applicant lodged a claim against the A. company with the Nasimi District Court. He sought compensation in the amount of AZN 301,164 in respect of pecuniary damage (including AZN 283,764 for the demolished building and AZN 17,400 for having to live in a rented apartment), AZN 130,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and AZN 19.80 for court fees.

15.  On 5 November 2008 the first‑instance court rejected the claim as inadmissible, noting the technical defects to be remedied. Following a new claim lodged by the applicant, the first‑instance court decided to refer the case to the Nizami District Court for consideration on the basis of territorial jurisdiction. On 13 January 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed that decision, remitting the case to the Nasimi District Court for reconsideration.

16.  On an unspecified date in July 2009, the applicant asked the Nasimi District Court to suspend the construction work being carried out by the A. company and to seize the company’s bank account as measures to secure his claims. By a decision of 9 July 2009, the first‑instance court dismissed the petition. The applicant appealed and, following a remittal, on 1 December 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court’s decision.

17.  On 25 October 2011 the Nasimi District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part, awarding him AZN 93,500 in respect of pecuniary damage. The court found that, having obtained authorisation from the NDEA to rebuild his apartment (see paragraph 3 above), the applicant had built a two‑storey house that did not correspond to the “technical passport”. It was therefore considered an unauthorised construction. Furthermore, no title had been registered for the house. The court referred to an expert valuation report commissioned by it, which estimated the market price of the 55 sq. m apartment at AZN 93,500 (AZN 1,700 per square metre). The court dismissed the remaining claims as unsubstantiated.

18.  The applicant appealed, complaining mainly about the amount of compensation and adding two expert valuation reports, which estimated the market price of houses in the area at AZN 2,900 and AZN 3,050 per square metre respectively. He argued that, despite his request, the first instance court had not given him time to submit the valuation reports.

19.  On 13 March 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first instance court’s judgment, endorsing its reasoning and adding that the expert valuation reports submitted by the applicant were unsubstantiated. It also referred to the fact that N. had sold her share of the apartment to the A. company for AZN 2,000 per square metre (see paragraph 10 above).

20.  On 14 August 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the appellate court’s judgment.

21.  The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a reasoned judgment and his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated. He also complained under Article 8 that the demolition of the house had constituted an interference with his right to respect for his home. He further complained under Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he had not been afforded a remedy providing effective protection against the violation of his rights. The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the demolition of his house had amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with his property rights.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

22.  In his observations submitted to the Court, the applicant introduced a new complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non‑enforcement of the Supreme Court’s final judgment of 14 August 2012. In the Court’s view, this complaint is not an elaboration of the applicant’s original complaints (compare Olkhovikova v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committtee], no. 36002/08, § 14, 25 November 2011). Moreover, the applicant had the opportunity to lodge a new application in respect of any other complaints relating to the subsequent events in accordance with the requirements set out in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court (compare Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, § 97, 20 September 2018) and such opportunity is still open to him in the event that the judgment in question remains unenforced. The Court considers, therefore, that the scope of the present case is limited to the original complaints (see paragraph 21 above).

23.  The Government submitted that the finding of a violation of the applicant’s property rights and the award of compensation by the domestic court had constituted appropriate and sufficient redress. The applicant could not therefore claim to be a victim.

24.  The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government’s objection concerning the applicant’s victim status, since the complaint is in any event inadmissible, for the following reasons.

25.  The Court’s case‑law on the concept of “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has been summarised in, inter alia, Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 76254/11, § 73, 29 January 2015), Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 102-04, 21 September 2021) and Alif Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 22619/14, § 35, 4 May 2023).

26.  The Court notes that under domestic law, a residential building, construction, facility, or other immovable property erected on a plot of land not allocated for construction purposes or without obtaining the necessary permits or as a result of a serious breach of town‑planning and building regulations is considered an unauthorised construction. The party that had erected an unauthorised construction cannot acquire ownership rights to the construction in question and is not entitled to dispose of it by sale, deed of gift, lease or by any other means (see Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan, no. 9437/12, §§ 12-14, 18 November 2021).

27.  In the present case, the applicant demolished his apartment and built a house that was five times bigger than was permitted by the NDEA (see paragraphs 3 and 4 above).

28.  The Court observes that there was no uncertainty in the domestic provisions on unauthorised constructions which could have caused the applicant to believe that those provisions would not be applied in respect of the house in question (compare Ahmadova, § 31, and Alif Ahmadov and Others, § 43, both cited above).

29.  However, despite the above‑mentioned circumstances, and without recognising the applicant’s right of ownership over the property in question (see paragraphs 13 and 17 above), the domestic courts awarded him compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. In doing so, they dismissed the valuation reports submitted by the applicant, providing reasons as to why they gave preference to the court‑commissioned expert valuation report (see paragraph 19 above; compare Giuffrè and Others v. Italy [Committee], no. 50827/11, § 40, 5 September 2024). The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the courts was not reasonably related to the actual value of the property or that his rights have been otherwise infringed (see, for general principles, Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 66581/12 and 25054/15, §§ 62-64, 14 May 2020, with further references, and compare Rahimova and Kaspi-Merkuri Firm v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 32780/12 and 15435/14, § 20, 29 April 2025, with further references).

30.  Accordingly, even assuming that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is applicable in the present case, this complaint is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

31.  The Court reiterates that the concept of “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention 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, cited above, § 41).

32.  It follows from the documents in the case file that the applicant demolished his apartment on an unspecified date in 2002 because it had fallen into disrepair as a result of an earthquake; he built an unfinished house in its place (see paragraphs 3 and 4 above). There is no proof that he lived in the house in question at any point before it was demolished in 2008 (see paragraph 6 above).

33.  Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (compare Nasirov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 58717/10, § 75, 20 February 2020, and Hasanali Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 42858/11, § 39, 9 June 2022).

34.  The Government argued that although the applicant had complained about the length of the proceedings in his appeal, he had not raised that issue in his cassation appeal and he had therefore failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The applicant disagreed, reiterating his complaint.

35.  The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the Government’s above‑mentioned objection, since this complaint is in any event inadmissible, for the following reason.

36.  The relevant general principles concerning the excessive length of proceedings have been summarised, inter alia, in Ramiz Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 40424/12, § 55, 16 June 2022, with further references).

37.  The Court observes that, in the present case, the civil proceedings in the first‑instance court lasted almost three years. During that period, various procedural actions were carried out and relevant decisions were taken. In the specific circumstances of the present case, the overall length of the proceedings – approximately three years and nine months at three levels of jurisdiction – cannot be regarded as excessive (compare Ordukhanova v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 27741/13, §§ 19-21, 23 and 27, 9 May 2023). Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

38.  As to the applicant’s remaining complaints under Article 6 (alleging a breach of his right to a reasoned judgment) and Article 13 of the Convention (see paragraph 21 above), the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 20 November 2025.

 Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
 Deputy Registrar President