CASE OF SAMADOV AND NAJAFOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SAMADOV AND NAJAFOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

(Applications nos. 6250/15 and 7637/15)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

17 June 2025

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

In the case of Samadov and Najafova v. Azerbaijan,

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

 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, 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 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 complaints in application no. 7637/15 inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 27 May 2025,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The applications concern the applicants’ complaint that the expropriation of the properties where they had lived for several years, including a plot of land attached to the house in application no. 7637/15, and their eviction from those properties by the State authorities was unlawful.

2.  The applicant in application no. 6250/15, at the time of the events the chief engineer of the ship Orion-7, lived with his family in an apartment in Baku allocated to him for his temporary use until he acquired a new place of residence. The apartment had been allocated to him on the basis of a decision taken at a meeting of the trade union of the State-owned Southern District Marine Oil Fleet Administration on 28 April 2003. On an unspecified date after the allocation of that apartment, he built an additional “living space” near it without any authorisation.

3.  The applicant in application no. 7637/15 lived in a house in Baku, which was an unauthorised construction. On 27 September 2002 the Housing Utility Association issued a document in the applicant’s name entitled “information about the tenant” (mənzil kirayəçisi haqqında məlumat) in respect of her utility bills.

4.  The applicants did not have ownership certificates in respect of the properties in question.

5.  By a notification dated 12 April 2012, sent by the Sabail District Executive Authority (“the SDEA”), the applicants were informed that: (i) the properties in question were to be expropriated for State needs; (ii) they had three days to vacate them; (iii) bank accounts had been opened in their names; and (iv) amounts determined on the basis of a valuation of their properties by a private company had been paid into those accounts as compensation (see the appended table). It appears from the documents in the case file that the applicants received those amounts. The properties were demolished on different dates in April 2012. According to the applicants, they were forcibly evicted from the properties several days after receiving the above-mentioned notification.

6.  On different dates in 2012 and 2013 the applicants brought separate sets of proceedings before Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1, complaining about the unlawful demolition of the properties in question and the amount of compensation paid by the SDEA. They claimed various sums in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

7.  On different dates (see the appended table) Baku Administrative‑Economic Court no. 1 dismissed both applicants’ claims as groundless. In particular, the first-instance court held that despite having no ownership rights over the properties in question (see paragraphs 2 and 3 above), the applicants had received the relevant amounts of compensation from the SDEA.

8.  The applicants appealed, reiterating their previous arguments. Relying on the provisions of domestic law, as well as on Article 8 of the Convention in so far as the applicant in application no. 7637/15 is concerned, they also complained of a breach of their right to the inviolability of their homes. The applicants’ appeals were dismissed by the higher courts (see the appended table).

9.  Before the Court, the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their right to a reasoned judgment had been breached. They also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the demolition of the properties in question had obliged them and their families to leave those properties, thereby violating their right to respect for their home. They further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their properties had been unlawfully expropriated and that the amount of compensation paid to them had been inadequate.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

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

11.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not possessed any title to the properties in question. The applicants disagreed, arguing, in particular, that they had had a legitimate expectation of acquiring ownership of the properties.

12.  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) and Aliyeva and Others (nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 102-04, 21 September 2021).

13.  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicants never formally registered any ownership rights over the properties in question.

14.  Furthermore, the Court observes that the applicants had already received compensation from the SDEA in respect of the expropriation of the properties prior to lodging claims with the domestic courts (see paragraph 5 above). Providing reasoned decisions, the courts in turn did not award them any compensation but merely noted in their judgments the fact that they had already received the relevant sums, while emphasising that they had had no ownership rights over the properties (see paragraph 7 above). The domestic courts in the present cases therefore never recognised that the applicants had had a proprietary interest in the properties, given the absence of the relevant documentation (contrast Rahimov v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), no. 40026/09, § 18, 7 July 2022, and compare Karimov v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), no. 60545/14, § 14, 26 September 2024).

15.  The Court also notes that the applicant in application no. 6250/15 was allocated the apartment for his temporary use by the State-owned company for which he worked (see paragraph 2 above). It points out that a right to use a particular property of which one is not the owner for personal purposes does not constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Tchokontio Happi v. France, no. 65829/12, § 58, 9 April 2015, with further references). Furthermore, allowing a “user” such as the applicant (who was not even a tenant) to remain indefinitely in premises belonging to the State would prevent the authorities from performing their obligation to administer State property in accordance with their statutory and constitutional duties (compare J.L.S. v. Spain (dec.), no. 41917/98, ECHR 1999-V).

16.  In addition, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that the additional “living space” in application no. 6250/15 and the house in application no. 7637/15 were unauthorised constructions (see paragraphs 2 and 3 above). In this connection, the Court notes that, under Azerbaijani law, unauthorised constructions cannot form the subject of property rights (see Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan, no. 9437/12, §§ 14 and 29, 18 November 2021, and Alif Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 22619/14, §§ 23 and 36, 4 May 2023).

17.  In such circumstances, and in the absence of any substantiated arguments, it cannot be established that the properties in question constituted the applicants’ “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

18.  As to the claim of the applicant in application no. 7637/15 concerning the plot of land attached to the house, the Court notes that she never registered her ownership rights over the house; thus, at the time of its demolition, it was not formally in her “private ownership” within the meaning of domestic law. In such circumstances, prior to the demolition of the house, the applicant had no legally exercisable right to have any part of the land underlying it transferred into her ownership (contrast Akhverdiyev, cited above, § 77). The Court reiterates in this connection that a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non‑fulfilment of the condition cannot be considered a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Aliyeva and Others, cited above, §§ 104 and 113). Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated in the present case that the applicant in application no. 7637/15 ever had a “legitimate expectation” of acquiring ownership over the land in question (compare Rahimov, cited above, § 15).

19.  It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

20.  The relevant principles concerning the concept of “home” are summarised in, inter alia, Ahmadova (cited above, § 41).

21.  In the present case, it is undisputed that the applicants had lived in the properties in question for several years before their eviction. The Court therefore finds that the applicants had sufficient and continuous links with the properties at issue for them to be considered their “home” for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention.

22.  The Court notes that this complaint 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.

23.  The Court considers that the eviction of the applicants amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their home under Article 8 of the Convention.

24.  In order to determine whether the interference was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8, the Court must examine in turn whether it was “in accordance with the law”, whether it had an aim that was legitimate under that paragraph and whether it was “necessary in a democratic society” for the aforesaid aim (see Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 48, Series A no. 109).

25.  The Court notes that domestic law established the right to the inviolability of the home, permitting eviction only on the grounds laid down in law or on the basis of a court order (see Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, §§ 73, 84 and 128, 22 October 2015). It is clear that in the present case the applicants’ eviction from their homes was not based on a court decision or any other legal precept (compare ibid., and Jansons v. Latvia, no. 1434/14, § 89, 8 September 2022). In this connection, the Court has already held that the practice by the State authorities of forcibly evicting an individual from his or her home without any legal basis is not compatible with the rule of law in a democratic society respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention (see Khalikova, cited above, § 128).

26.  It follows that the interference in the present case cannot be considered to be “in accordance with the law”, as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. Having reached this conclusion, the Court is not required to determine whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society” for one of the aims enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 8 (ibid., § 129).

27.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

28.  As regards the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 9 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 admissibility and merits of these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37706/17 and 5 others, §§ 55-56, 31 August 2023).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

29.  The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 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.

30.  In the present cases, an award in respect of damage can only be made on the basis of a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court considers that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation and that an award should therefore be made. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards each applicant the sum of 4,500 euros (EUR) under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

31.  As regards costs and expenses, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award each applicant the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, 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 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand 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 17 June 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Olga Chernishova Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: