CASE OF ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 67851/12)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

15 July 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting 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. 67851/12) 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 19 October 2012 by three Azerbaijani nationals (see the appended table), who were represented by Mr F. Agayev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 6 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 remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The present case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaint regarding the alleged unlawful demolition and expropriation of their property.

2.  The applicants were the owners of a non-residential building in Baku and the land underlying it. According to the ownership certificates issued to them in 1998 and 2000, the total surface area of the building and the land was 73.6 sq. m each. According to the applicants, the building had an additional storey and its actual total surface area was 135.74 sq. m. They claimed that their ownership rights over that part of the building had been recognised by a domestic court, but they did not provide a copy of that decision.

3.  It appears from the case file that following an inspection of the building, the Ministry of Emergency Situations informed the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) by letter that the building was in a state of disrepair as a result of the 2000 earthquake, making further use of it impossible. In response the BCEA instructed the Sabail District Executive Authority (“the SDEA”) to demolish the building. In November 2009 the State authorities began the demolition process. Following the demolition, the applicants were also deprived of the underlying land.

4.  The applicants brought civil proceedings against the BCEA and the SDEA before the Sabail District Court, requesting that the court recognise the respondent authorities’ actions regarding the demolition of the building as a violation of their property rights. They also sought compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, comprising 678,700 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for the demolished building (AZN 5,000 per square metre), AZN 736,000 for the underlying land, AZN 12,000 for damaged belongings and AZN 10,000 for lost profit. Meanwhile, the BCEA brought proceedings against the applicants before the same court, seeking to invalidate the contract for the sale of the underlying land, terminate their ownership rights and restore the State’s ownership rights. On 11 January 2011 the applicants obtained a report (akt) from a private company estimating the value of the building at AZN 2,036,100 (AZN 15,000 per square metre) and the total value of the underlying land at AZN 220,800.

5.  The Sabail District Court joined the two sets of proceedings into one and, by a judgment of 17 June 2011, allowed the applicants’ claim in part, awarding them AZN 372,121.60 in total (approximately EUR 333,232 at the relevant time). It dismissed the remainder of their claim and the BCEA’s claim in its entirety, holding that the demolition of the applicants’ building and expropriation of the underlying land by the BCEA had been unlawful, as the latter had failed to follow the relevant domestic procedure for the demolition and expropriation of the property in question. The court commissioned the State Registry of Immovable Property to conduct a valuation of the applicants’ property, which estimated the market value of the demolished building and all residential and non-residential premises situated in the adjacent building at AZN 2,056 (approximately 1,840 euros (EUR) at the relevant time) per square metre. The report (a copy of which was not made available to the Court) did not contain an estimate of the value of the underlying land. The court awarded the applicants AZN 151,321 in respect of the demolished building, referring to the valuation report it had commissioned, and AZN 220,800 in respect of the land, referring to the report submitted by the applicants.

6.  The first-instance court’s judgment was subsequently upheld by the Baku Court of Appeal on 15 November 2011 and the Supreme Court on 27 April 2012.

7.  On 17 March 2013 the domestic court’s final judgment was enforced and the applicants were paid the full amount awarded by the courts. According to the applicants, they were required to provide written assurances prior to payment confirming that the amount of compensation was sufficient and that they would not pursue the matter further before either the domestic courts or the Court.

8.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had been unlawfully deprived of their property, that the amount of compensation awarded to them had been inadequate and that they had not been awarded any compensation for damage to their possessions during the demolition. They also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic court’s final judgment had not been enforced. They further complained under Articles 6 and 13 that the domestic courts had failed to substantiate their findings and that they had had no effective domestic remedy at their disposal to protect their Convention rights. Lastly, they complained that there had been a hindrance to the exercise of their right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention as they had been forced to waive their right to bring a case before the Court in order to receive the compensation.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

9.  The Government submitted that the domestic courts’ finding of a violation of the applicants’ property rights and the award of compensation in respect of pecuniary damage had constituted appropriate and sufficient redress and that they could not claim to be victims of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants maintained their complaint.

10.  It is undisputed that the demolished building and underlying land, as stated in the ownership documents (see paragraph 2 above), constituted the applicants’ “possessions”.

11.  The applicants also claimed that the demolished building had had an additional storey and that the total surface area had therefore been 135.74 sq. m. However, they failed to submit any relevant documentary evidence in support of this before either the domestic courts or the Court. It cannot therefore be established that their claim in respect of the additional surface area amounted to their “possession” 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 of the Convention.

12.  The Court considers that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Government’s objection concerning the applicants’ victim status is so closely connected to the merits of their property complaint that it should be joined to the merits (compare Khizanishvili and Kandelaki v. Georgia, no. 25601/12, § 44, 17 December 2019).

13.  The complaint, except the part declared inadmissible in paragraph 11 above, is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

14.  The applicable principles under Article 34 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 have been summarised, inter alia, in Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-81, ECHR 2006‑V); Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia ([GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 95-99 and 108-14, 25 October 2012); and Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 76254/11, § 73, 29 January 2015).

15.  In the present case, the domestic courts found that the applicants had been unlawfully deprived of their property (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above). They therefore acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ property rights and awarded them compensation, the adequacy of which was contested. While the domestic courts are normally in a better position to determine the existence and quantum of pecuniary damage (see Scordino, cited above, § 203), the Court has jurisdiction to assess whether compensation was appropriate and sufficient within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

(a)   Underlying land

16.  With respect to the land, the domestic courts awarded the applicants compensation of AZN 220,800, its market price according to the report submitted by the applicants (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above). In such circumstances, and in the absence of any substantiated arguments to the contrary, the Court considers that the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants was reasonable and constituted appropriate and sufficient redress for the breach of their Convention rights. Accordingly, with respect to the complaint regarding the land, they can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. This part of the complaint is therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

(b)   Non-residential building

17.  As to the demolished building, the domestic courts had before them two reports concerning its value. The report commissioned by the court estimated the market price per square metre of the building and residential and non-residential premises in the adjacent building at AZN 2,056. In contrast, the report submitted by the applicants estimated the market price per square metre of the building at AZN 15,000 (see paragraph 4 above).

18.  It appears from the case file that when calculating the amount of compensation in respect of the building, the domestic courts disregarded the report submitted by the applicants without any explanation and referred solely to the court-commissioned report, which established a single price for the building and adjacent premises. On the other hand, when calculating the amount of compensation in respect of the land, the domestic courts referred to the report submitted by the applicants without providing reasons as to what elements led it to consider only a part of that report and disregard the part concerning the value of the building. It follows that the domestic courts failed to explain the approach followed and the level of compensation achieved (compare Khizanishvili and Kandelaki, § 58, cited above).

19.  In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the applicants were not awarded full compensation in respect of the unlawful demolition of their building. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection concerning their victim status. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

20.  As to the applicants’ complaint of damage to their possessions, the Court notes that they failed to substantiate it, either before the domestic courts or the Court. This part of the complaint is therefore manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

21.  The Government submitted that the final judgment in the present case was enforced.

22.  It appears from the case file that the judgment, which became final on 27 April 2012, was fully enforced on 17 March 2013, within a period of less than eleven months. Having regard to its case‑law on the subject (see, for example, Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (dec.) [Committee], no. 51435/10, 1 December 2015, with further references) and the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that the judgment was enforced within a reasonable time. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

23.  As concerns the remaining complaints under Articles 6 (right to a reasoned judgment), 13 and 34 of the Convention (see paragraph 8 above), having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

24.  The applicants claimed the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and for costs and expenses. Their claims for compensation for pecuniary damage also contained claims for an additional 20% compensation under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 and compensation for hardship under Article 66 of the Law on the Expropriation of Land for State Needs (see Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 69-70, 21 September 2021). They further submitted that adjustments for inflation and interest rates should be awarded.

25.  The Government submitted that the applicants’ claims were excessive and unsubstantiated.

26.  The Court firstly notes that the applicants never claimed an additional 20% compensation and compensation for hardship in their complaints before the domestic courts and in their initial application to the Court. It therefore rejects these parts of the claim (compare Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, § 31, 21 March 2019).

27.  As mentioned above, a copy of the court-commissioned report was not submitted to the Court (see paragraph 5 above). As to the report submitted by the applicants, the Court firstly notes that the conclusions of this report were based on the market value in January 2011 and not on the date on which the deprivation of property occurred (compare Ganiyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 62490/09, § 62, 18 February 2021). Moreover, it is not clear how the expert had arrived at the market value in question. In view of these considerations and taking into account all the material in its possession, the amount already received by the applicants, and the applicable statutory interest rates of the Central Bank of Azerbaijan, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 75,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.

28.  Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court further awards the applicants jointly EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.

29.  As to costs and expenses, having regard to the documents submitted by the applicants, the Court awards them jointly EUR 1,000 for legal costs, and EUR 55 for postal expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 75,000 (seventy-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(iii)  EUR 1,055 (one thousand and fifty-five euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applicants:

No.

Applicant’s name Year of birth Nationality

Place of residence

Just satisfaction claims

1.

Gurban Sattar oglu ALIYEV

1949

Azerbaijani

Baku

EUR 752,300 in respect of pecuniary damage;

EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

AZN 3,800 for costs and expenses.

2.

Hasan Gurban oglu MAHARLAMOV

1980

Azerbaijani

Baku

EUR 750,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;

EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

AZN 3,800 for costs and expenses.

3.

Ulkar Mammmadtagi gizi MAHARRAMOVA

1955

Azerbaijani

Baku

EUR 750,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;

EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

AZN 3,800 for costs and expenses.