CASE OF MAMMADZADE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MAMMADZADE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

(Applications nos. 71454/13 and 2 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

7 October 2025

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

In the case of Mammadzade 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 applications 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”) by the Azerbaijan nationals listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 6 and 8 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 the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 16 September 2025,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The applications mainly concern the applicants’ complaints about the allegedly unlawful expropriation of their properties by the State authorities.

2.  The applicants’ properties (see the appended table) were demolished by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) on the basis of two orders issued by its head on 15 February and 31 May 2011. The orders stated that the buildings and houses located on certain streets in Baku were to be demolished for the purpose of expanding, improving and greening the National Flag Square Complex, transforming the area into a recreational zone and widening the surrounding roads. The applicants were offered compensation at a rate of 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per square metre of their properties. The BCEA proposed to make the payments not as compensation for expropriation, but rather on the basis of contracts of sale to be entered into by the residents and Z.I., a representative of the BCEA. The applicants entered into these contracts after the demolition of their properties and received the corresponding amounts (see the appended table).

3.  On various dates between 2012 and 2014 the applicants brought proceedings before Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, primarily alleging that the above‑mentioned orders, the actions of the BCEA’s employees in seeking to evict them from their properties and the subsequent demolition of those properties had been unlawful. They also complained that the amount of compensation offered or already paid by the BCEA had been too low and claimed various sums in respect of pecuniary damage (applications nos. 71454/13 and 57408/14) and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants in application no. 71454/13 also claimed: (i) additional compensation amounting to 20% of the market value of their properties under Article 2.3 of Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 (“the additional 20% compensation”); (ii) a further 10% compensation “for hardship” under Article 66 of the Law on the Expropriation of Land for State Needs (“compensation for hardship”) (see Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 69-70, 21 September 2021); and (iii) compensation for relocation expenses. The applicants also asked the court to declare the contracts of sale concluded between them and Z.I. unlawful, arguing that they had been entered into under duress. The applicants submitted expert valuation reports, which estimated the value of each square metre of the properties in question to be between AZN 1,888 and 2,600.

4.  By final judgments delivered on various dates (see the appended table) the Supreme Court either upheld the lower court’s judgments (in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 3121/14 and 57408/14) or quashed them (in respect of the applicants in application no. 71454/13). It dismissed the claims of the applicants in applications nos. 71454/13 and 3121/14. As regards the applicant in application no. 57408/14, the court partially upheld her claims, awarding her, of its own motion, the additional 20% compensation. The court found that the BCEA’s actions had been lawful and that compensation at a rate of AZN 1,500 per square metre had been adequate. As regards the applicants in application no. 71454/13 and their claims for the additional 20% compensation, compensation for hardship and relocation expenses, the court held that (i) they had voluntarily concluded the contracts of sale; (ii) there had been no decision by the Cabinet of Ministers authorising the expropriation of their properties, and therefore no expropriation or purchase for State needs had occurred; and (iii) they had failed to submit any documents in support of their claims. As regards the validity of the contracts of sale, the court held that they had been entered into in accordance with domestic law (in respect of the applicants in all applications) and that any complaints concerning their validity should be brought before the appropriate courts in separate civil proceedings (in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 71454/13 and 57408/14). There is no information in the case file as to whether the applicants initiated such proceedings following the Supreme Court’s judgment in their respective cases.

5.  At the time of the most recent communication with the parties, the Supreme Court’s final judgment of 12 February 2014 (in respect of the applicant in application no. 57408/14) remained unenforced.

6.  The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention of a breach of their right to a reasoned judgment. The applicant in application no. 57408/14 further complained, under Article 6 § 1, that the Supreme Court’s final judgment of 12 February 2014 had not been enforced (see paragraph 5 above). The applicants also complained, under Article 8, of a violation of their right to respect for their home. They also complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the de facto expropriation of their properties by way of demolition had amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with their property rights. Lastly, they contended that the amounts paid in compensation for their properties had been too low.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

7.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

8.  It is undisputed that the relevant properties, as indicated in the ownership documents and the domestic courts’ judgments, were in the applicants’ private ownership (see the appended table).

9.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

10.  The general principles concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 have been summarised in, inter alia, Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 76254/11, §§ 79-82, 29 January 2015), Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883/11, §§ 134-36, 22 October 2015) and Maharramov v. Azerbaijan (no. 5046/07, §§ 56-60, 30 March 2017).

11.  The Court reiterates that the first and most important requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be “lawful” (see, among many other authorities, Yavuz Özden v. Turkey, no. 21371/10, § 78, 14 September 2021, and Par and Hyodo v. Azerbaijan, nos. 54563/11 and 22428/15, § 52, 18 November 2021).

12.  In Khalikova (cited above, §§ 137-41) the Court found that the expropriation of the applicant’s property had not been carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law”. It concluded, in particular, that (i) the BCEA had had no authority to expropriate private property; (ii) no lawful expropriation order had been issued by a competent State authority; and (iii) the interference with the applicant’s possessions had thus constituted a de facto deprivation of possessions. The Court also found a contract of sale between the applicant and a third party, R.K., to be irrelevant, holding that (i) it had been entered into after the demolition of the applicant’s property, and (ii) it was clear that R.K. had been entrusted with this task by the BCEA and had acted on behalf of the executive authorities (ibid., § 140). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It thus considers that the expropriation of the applicants’ properties was not carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law” (compare Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 77919/11 and 13 others, § 17, 10 November 2022).

13.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

14.  As to the complaint of the applicant in application no. 57408/14 concerning the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s final judgment of 12 February 2014 (see paragraph 6 above), the Government submitted that they would “take measures” to enforce the judgment.

15.  This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible.

16.  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint discloses a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36079/06, §§ 52‑54, 29 July 2010), Faber Firm and Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 3365/08, §§ 20-23, 25 November 2010) and Akhundov v. Azerbaijan (no. 39941/07, §§ 31-36, 3 February 2011).

17.  Turning to the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 (right to a reasoned judgment) and Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph 6 above), having regard to the facts of the case, the parties’ submissions and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of 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

18.  The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (see the appended table). Their claims for pecuniary damage also included (i) the additional 20% compensation; (ii) compensation for hardship; and (iii) compensation for relocation expenses and loss of profit (applications nos. 71454/13 and 3121/14). The applicant in application no. 57408/14 also asked the Court to take into account inflation and interest.

19.  The Government asked the Court to reject the applicants’ claims.

20.  As regards the parts of the applicants’ claims concerning the additional 20% compensation and compensation for hardship, the Court notes that, with the exception of the applicants in application no. 71454/13, the remaining applicants did not raise the applicability of the relevant provisions either before the domestic courts (application no. 3121/14) or in their applications to the Court (application no. 57408/14). Moreover, the applicants in application no. 71454/13, whose claim for compensation for hardship was dismissed by the domestic courts, did not raise that issue in their application to the Court. The Court therefore rejects these parts of the claims (compare Akhverdiyev (just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, § 31, 21 March 2019). As to the parts of the claims for relocation expenses and loss of profit (applications nos. 71454/13 and 3121/14), they are either not substantiated by any supporting documents or are based on insufficient relevant material. The Court also rejects these parts of the claims.

21.  As to compensation for the applicants’ properties, the Court notes that the letters submitted by the applicants in applications nos. 71454/13 and 3121/14 with their observations on just satisfaction merely provided estimated values without any explanation of the methodology used, or references to previous expert opinions or other supporting data (compare Maharramov (just satisfaction), no. 5046/07, §§ 17 and 19, 9 May 2019). The Court therefore considers it appropriate to rely on the expert valuation reports submitted by the applicants to the domestic courts (see paragraph 3 above) and awards the amounts indicated in the appended table to the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

22.  As to non-pecuniary damage, ruling on an equitable basis as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant in application no. 57408/14 the sum of 4,700 euros (EUR) for the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (non-enforcement of a final judgment) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It awards EUR 3,000 to each of the remaining applicants for the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts.

23.  As to costs and expenses, the Court awards the amount indicated in the appended table to the applicants in application no. 71454/13 for legal expenses. It rejects the claims by the applicants in applications nos. 3121/14 and 57408/14 in that regard, owing to the absence of any supporting documentation (compare Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 97, 1 June 2017). Having regard to the receipts provided, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table for postal expenses.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(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 7 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: