CASE OF SALAMOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SALAMOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

(Applications nos. 66345/12 and 52066/13)

JUDGMENT
(Merits)

STRASBOURG

4 February 2025

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

In the case of Salamova and Others v. Azerbaijan,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Darian Pavli, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, 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 applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 6, Article 8, Article 13 and Article 34 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 14 January 2025,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

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

2.  The facts of the present cases are similar in several respects to those in Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883/11, 22 October 2015). In the present case, the applicants’ properties were demolished by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), on the basis of two orders issued by the head of the BCEA on 24 September 2008 and 16 February 2011 which stated that the buildings and houses located on certain streets were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing a new garden-park complex (“the Winter Park”) and the residents were to be relocated. The applicants were offered 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per square metre of their properties in compensation. The BCEA offered to make the payments not as compensation for expropriation, but on the basis of contracts of sale to be entered into by the residents and two individuals, R.K. or Z.I., who were apparently acting on behalf of the BCEA. The applicants entered into contracts of this nature after the demolition of their properties.

3.  On various dates in 2010 and 2011, the applicants initiated civil (application no. 66345/12) or administrative-economic (jointly in application no. 52066/13) proceedings before the domestic courts, complaining mainly that the BCEA’s above-mentioned orders and the demolition of the properties had been unlawful. The applicants also asked the courts to declare unlawful the contracts of sale between them and R.K. and Z.I. because they had been entered into under duress. The applicants complained that the level of compensation offered by the BCEA had been too low and asked for an award of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

4.  On various dates (see the appended table), the relevant first-instance courts dismissed the applicants’ complaints, finding that the BCEA’s actions had been lawful, and that the amount of compensation had been adequate. The courts, referring to the ownership documents, certificates and contracts of sale, found that, although the eighth and eleventh applicants in application no. 52066/13 had claimed that the total surface area of their properties had been 235.5 sq. m and 126.35 sq. m respectively, they had ownership rights over one-third of the above-mentioned properties. In respect of the claims regarding the contracts of sale, the courts held that they had been entered into in accordance with the relevant law (application no. 66345/12) or that they should be lodged with the appropriate courts in separate civil proceedings (application no. 52066/13).

5.  By final judgments delivered on various dates (see the appended table) the Supreme Court dismissed or partly dismissed cassation appeals by the applicants, reiterating the reasoning of the lower courts. In application no. 52066/13 the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the parts of the complaint regarding the contracts of sale and the compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage, holding that the claims in question should be lodged with the appropriate courts in separate civil proceedings. There is no information in the case file as to whether the applicants initiated new civil proceedings following the Supreme Court’s judgment.

6.  The applicants complained of violations of their rights under Articles 6, 8, 13 and 34 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

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.  The Court notes at the outset that three of the applicants – Ms Tahira Salamova, Ms Zohra Hajiyeva and Mr Ilgar Novruzov – died in the course of the proceedings (see the appended table below). Ms Salamova’s daughter Ms Aynura Salamova, Ms Hajiyeva’s daughter Ms Aliya Gurbanova, and Mr Novruzov’s wife Ms Sevda Novruzova expressed their wish to continue the proceedings before the Court.

9.  The Court notes that in various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the Convention proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. The Court has accepted that the next of kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, § 80, 21 February 2019, with further references). In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Ms Salamova’s and Ms Gurbanova’s daughters and Mr Novruzov’s wife have a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicants’ stead. However, for reasons of convenience, the text of this judgment will continue to refer to Ms Salamova, Ms Gurbanova and Mr Novruzov as “the applicants”, even though Ms Aynura Salamova, Ms Aliya Gurbanova and Ms Sevda Novruzova are today to be regarded as having the status of applicants before the Court.

10.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the de facto expropriation, by way of demolition, of their properties had amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with their property rights. They further complained that the amount of compensation paid for the properties had been too low. The applicant in application no. 66345/12 also complained that she had not been paid compensation for the land underlying her property.

11.  The applicants in application no. 52066/13 did not submit copies of their ownership documents to the Court. Having regard to the information available in the case file, and in particular the domestic courts’ judgments, the Court holds that the properties indicated in the appended table constituted the applicants’ “possessions”.

12.  As to the claim of the applicant in application no. 66345/12 in respect of the plot of land, the property in question was a flat situated in an apartment building. Under the provisions of domestic law, the land underlying and attached to such buildings was in the common, shared ownership of the owners of the apartments in that building, who did not have the right to divide in kind or sell their shares or to perform other acts aimed at the separate alienation of their respective shares. The Court has already held that such shares could not be regarded as separate “possessions” as such because they were attached to an apartment in the building of which they formed a part, thus constituting one whole property (see Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37706/17 and 5 others, § 38, 31 August 2023).

13.  The eighth and eleventh applicants in application no. 52066/13 claimed that the total surface area of their respective properties was 235.5 sq. m and 126.35 sq. m. The domestic courts held that they each had ownership rights over one-third of the above-mentioned properties (see paragraph 4 above). The applicants failed to provide any documentary evidence in respect of the additional surface area claimed before either the domestic courts or the Court. It cannot therefore be established that the eighth and eleventh applicants’ claims in respect of the additional surface area amounted to their “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (compare Rahimov v. Azerbaijan (dec.) [Committee], no. 40026/09, § 17, 7 July 2022, and Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 77919/11 and 13 others, § 11, 10 November 2022).

14.  The Court notes that the complaint – except the parts examined in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, which are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto – 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.

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

16.  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).

17.  In Khalikova 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 did not have the 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 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 (cited above, §§ 137-41). 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 also Bagvanov and Others, cited above, § 17).

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

19.  On 9 September 2014 the applicant’s representative in application no. 52066/13, Mr I. Aliyev, lodged a new complaint on the applicants’ behalf, arguing that the seizure from his office of the entire case file relating to the applicants’ pending application before the Court had amounted to a hindrance to the exercise of the applicants’ right of individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention. The Government did not submit any observations in respect of this complaint.

20.  In Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (no. 2204/11, §§ 64-79, 22 October 2015), having examined an identical complaint based on similar facts, the Court found that the respondent State had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention. The Court considers that its analysis and findings in Annagi Hajibeyli also apply to the present application and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

21.  The Court therefore finds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.

22.  The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention of a breach of their right to a reasoned judgment. The applicant in application no. 66345/12 further complained under Articles 8 (right to respect for home) and 13 of the Convention that there had been a violation of her Convention rights. 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 admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints in both applications (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014; see also Bagvanov and Others, § 23; and Bagirova and Others, §§ 55-56, both cited above).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

23.  The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses (see the appended table). The Government submitted that the sums claimed were excessive and that the applicants had failed to substantiate their claims.

24.  The Court considers that the question of the application of Article 41 is not ready for decision. It is therefore necessary to reserve the matter in its entirety, due regard being had to the possibility of an agreement between the respondent State and the applicants (Rule 75 §§ 1 and 4 of the Rules of Court).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  reserves the said question in whole;

(b)  invites the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach;

(c)  reserves the further procedure and delegates to the President of the Committee the power to fix the same if need be.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: