Communicated on 10 May 2017
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 38228/12
Lalazar MAMMADOVA
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 13 June 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Lalazar Mammadova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1962. Her address is not specified in the application. She is represented before the Court by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicant became homeless after she had lost her flat as a result of a fraud.
On an unspecified date in 1996 she was allowed by the Scientific Research Silkmaking Institute of Azerbaijan (hereinafter “the Institute”) to settle in a part of the non-residential building of the Ganja Experimental Practical Gene Pool Base of the Institute (hereinafter “the building”).
On an unspecified date in 2011 the Institute lodged a claim with the Kapaz District Court against the applicant arguing that her occupation of the building had been unlawful and asking for her eviction from the building.
On 5 July 2011 the Kapaz District Court ordered the applicant’s eviction, finding that she had unlawfully occupied the building.
The applicant appealed, arguing that she had been living there for fifteen years without any objection by the Institute and that she did not have any other place to live.
On 22 November 2011 the Ganja Court of Appeal and on 16 March 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment.
On 8 August 2014 the applicant’s lawyer, Mr I. Aliyev, was arrested on charges of tax evasion, illegal entrepreneurship and abuse of authority. During a search of his office, a number of documents were seized by the State authorities, including all the case files relating to applications before the Court that were in the possession of Mr I. Aliyev, as a representative. On 25 October 2014 some of the seized documents were returned to Javad Javadov, Mr. I. Aliyev’s counsel.
By a fax dated 28 August 2014, Mr I. Aliyev informed the Court of the seizure of the case files claiming a breach of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of all the applications affected. In his letters sent to the Court in September 2014 Mr I. Aliyev reiterated the complaint concerning the seizure of the case files.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains, in substance under Article 8 of the Convention, that her eviction from the building violated her right to respect for her home.
2. The applicant also complains that by the seizure of her case file from Mr I. Aliyev’s office in August 2014, the State had hindered the effective exercise of her right of application under Article 34 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the respective part of the building the applicant’s “home”, within the meaning of Article 8? If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Was the decision-making process of the domestic courts such as to afford due respect to the applicant’s interests protected under Article 8 of the Convention?
2. When did the State authorities first become aware that the applicant lived in the building? Did the Institute or any other State authority allow the applicant to live in the building? Since the lodging of the present application, has the applicant been evicted form the respective property in accordance with the relevant domestic court decisions, and if so, where has the applicant been living after the eviction? The parties are requested to provide, where relevant and available, documentary evidence in support of their replies.
3. In view of the seizure of the applicant’s case file from Mr I. Aliyev’s office on 8 and 9 August 2014, has the State in the present case hindered the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application under Article 34 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy