Communicated on 26 May 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 69201/11
Aygun MAHMUDOVA against Azerbaijan
lodged on 17 October 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Aygun Mahmudova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1966 and lives in Baku. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Mutallimov and Mr J. Suleymanov, lawyers practising in Baku.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant owned a plot of land in Baku on which a non-residential building had been constructed.
On 26 January 2008 the company G. purchased the property at issue from a certain A.B., who acted on the basis of a power of attorney allegedly issued by the applicant. On an unspecified date, the building was demolished and G. started to construct a new building on the plot of land.
On 7 October 2009, after she had become aware of the matter, the applicant brought a civil claim before the Nasimi District Court to challenge the contract between G. and A.B. and arguing that the latter had acted on the basis of a forged power of attorney. She also claimed restitution of the land and compensation for the demolished building.
On 14 October 2010 the Nasimi District Court found that A.B. had not acted on the basis of a valid power of attorney. It annulled the purchase contract and G.’s registration of the property in the land register. However, it dismissed the applicant’s claim regarding restitution of the land on the grounds that the relevant documents confirming her title had not been provided. It also dismissed the claim for compensation on the grounds that it had not been established who had demolished the building.
The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
In December 2010 G. and A.B. lodged appeals with the Baku Court of Appeal against the judgment of the Nasimi District Court. In February 2011 the applicant objected to those appeals.
On 29 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal partially quashed the first-instance judgment and ruled that there was no need for the annulment of G.’s title on the grounds that it was impossible to return the property at issue to the applicant as it had already been developed by G. The remainder of the first-instance judgment, in particular the parts regarding the dismissal of the claim for restitution of the land and for compensation, were upheld.
The Baku Court of Appeal also issued a special ruling and sent the case to the Prosecutor’s Office for a criminal investigation into the forging of the power of attorney.
On 19 April 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court, arguing that despite the finding that the power of attorney had been forged and that the relevant property transfer agreement had been invalid, G.’s title had not been annulled. That meant that the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision made no sense. On 23 August 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of a failure by the State to protect her property interests in relation to the unlawful divestment of her property title.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the alleged failure of the State to protect the applicant’s property interests in relation to the unlawful divestment of her property title?
3. The Government is requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the civil proceedings, including current and previous documents confirming the title to the property in question.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy