MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 2 other applications

Published on 10 November 2025

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 1137/18
Elshan MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 21 October 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The present applications are lodged in connection with the expropriation by the State authorities of the properties in which the applicants resided.

The facts of the present applications are similar in several respects to those in Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 37706/17 and 5 others, 31 August 2023). As in that case, in the present applications, the head of the Baku City Executive Authority issued an order on 12 December 2013 on the basis of which the buildings and houses located in several streets in Baku were to be resettled in connection with improvement of road-traffic infrastructure. The implementation of the order was assigned to the Yasamal District Executive Authority (“the YDEA”).

On 11 November 2015 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted decision no. 358, on the basis of which the YDEA was appointed as the State body acquiring the properties in the area in question for the purpose of construction of roads and other communication lines of State importance. By the same order the Cabinet of Ministers also instructed the YDEA to carry out preparatory measures for acquisition of properties for State needs and to present relevant proposals.

On various dates the authorities demolished the properties in question. The applicant in application no. 19845/18 signed a contract of sale with the YDEA and received compensation after the demolition of her property.

On various dates the applicants lodged complaints against the YDEA or the YDEA lodged complaints against the applicants with Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 or the Yasamal District Court.

On various dates (see the appended table), the domestic courts granted the YDEA’s claims and dismissed the applicants’ complaints in full or in part, finding that the expropriation and eviction of the applicants and the YDEA’s actions had been lawful and the amount of compensation had been adequate. The courts also held that the contract of sale had been concluded voluntarily and in accordance with the law.

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that their unlawful eviction from the properties in question had violated their right to respect for their home. They also complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings in question were not fair; in particular, that the domestic courts delivered unreasoned judgments by failing to properly verify the compliance of the interference with the applicable domestic legislation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment respected (see Mazahir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39331/09, §§ 33-36, 2 April 2020, and Aykhan Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 43467/06, §§ 86-88, 1 June 2023)?

2.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their 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 (compare Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, §§ 127-29, 22 October 2015)?

The parties are requested to provide, where relevant and available, necessary documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, in addition to the documents which have already been sent to the Court.

APPENDIX