Published on 21 June 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 53173/13
Hasan Suleyman oglu HUSEYNOV against Azerbaijan
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 31 May 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications nos. 53173/13 and 53731/13 were lodged by thirteen applicants. They concern the alleged unlawful expropriation of the applicants’ flats or non-residential properties following the order of 16 February 2011 of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) for the purpose of constructing the “Winter Park”, a garden-park complex. Pursuant to this order, the applicants concluded sale and purchase contracts with the deputy head of the BCEA, allegedly under duress.
The applicants jointly brought proceedings before the Baku Administrative Economic Court No. 1 against the BCEA asking mainly for the invalidation of its order and of the sale and purchase contracts (except Mr Huseynov, who challenged the validity of the sale and purchase contract separately), the restoration of their properties and compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage.
The applicants’ claims were examined in three separate court proceedings. The proceedings in respect of the claims concerning the invalidation of the BCEA’s order and compensation for non-pecuniary damage were terminated by the first-instance court on the ground that, despite having been informed about the hearings of 19 December 2012 and 31 January 2013, the applicants had failed to appear at those hearings consecutively for more than thirty days. According to the applicants, they had not been informed about the date and time of any hearing. Two sets of
proceedings in respect of the claims concerning the invalidation of the sale and purchase contracts, the restoration of the properties and compensation for pecuniary damage were still pending before the domestic courts at the time of the submission of the present applications to the Court.
Subsequently, two out of thirteen applicants in the above applications, Mr Ismayilov and Mr Huseynov, separately lodged new claims against the BCEA which are the subject matter of applications nos. 47637/15 and 50695/15 respectively. The second applicant in application no. 47637/15 is Mr Ismayilov’s spouse. These applications concern the applicants’ claims for payment of the market price of their expropriated properties and of two types of “additional compensation” for expropriation under domestic law. In both cases, only the applicants’ claims for one type of “additional compensation” were granted by the Supreme Court’s final judgments of 27 January 2015 and 19 February 2015 respectively. These judgments were not enforced.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 53173/13 and 53731/13 complain about a breach of their right of access to court. They further complain under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the alleged unlawful demolition and expropriation of their properties. The applicants also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they were not afforded a remedy providing effective protection against the violation of their rights.
The applicants in applications nos. 47637/15 and 50695/15 complain under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s final judgments in their favour.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
COMMON QUESTIONS IN APPLICATIONS NOS. 53173/13 and 53731/13
1. Did the applicants exhaust the domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the decision of 31 January 2013, has there been a breach of the applicants’ right of access to court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention? Were the applicants informed about the date and time of the hearings of 19 December 2012 and 31 January 2013 of Baku Administrative Economic Court No. 1? The Government are requested to provide relevant documentary evidence, if any, in support of their submissions.
3. Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 76254/11, 29 January 2015; Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, 22 October 2015; and Maharramov v. Azerbaijan, no. 5046/07, 30 March 2017)?
If the interference was lawful, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the demolition of their flats by the State authorities (except Mr Anvar Maharramov in application no. 53731/13)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
5. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
6. The parties are requested to submit copies of the domestic courts’ decisions and the appeals in the civil proceedings concerning the applicants’ claims in respect of the invalidation of the sale and purchase contracts, restoration of the properties and award of pecuniary damage.
COMMON QUESTION IN APPLICATIONS NOS. 47637/15 and 50695/15
Was the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s final judgments of 27 January 2015 and 19 February 2015 contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy