Communicated on 7 January 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 12098/09
Solmaz SALMANOVA against Azerbaijan
lodged on 12 February 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Solmaz Salmanova, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Baku. She is represented before the Court by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
By a letter of the Baku City Executive Authority of 6 January 1995, a two-room apartment was allocated to the applicant. By an order of 17 January 1995 the Nasimi District Executive Authority decided that the applicant was to be issued an occupancy voucher (“yaşayış orderi”) to the mentioned two-room apartment. For an unknown reason this decision was not implemented.
Some unspecified time later, I.A. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”), moved in the apartment in question.
When the applicant found out that the apartment was occupied by people unknown to her, she requested that they vacate it. However, I.A. refused to do so. The applicant lodged a lawsuit, requesting the court to recognize her tenancy right to the apartment and to evict I.A. and his family members from it.
On 21 April 2003 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant’s request. It found that the apartment in question was allocated to the applicant because her previous apartment was in emergency condition; and that I.A. and his family moved in the apartment without authorization. The court ordered their eviction from the apartment.
On 4 July 2003 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
By a decision of 10 October 2003 the Supreme Court upheld in substance the judgment of the Court of Appeal but added that the execution of the judgment was to be postponed until the Khojali District, where the respondents, I.A. and his family members, used to reside, was liberated from occupation.
At present, the Khojali District remains under the control of Armenian forces and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unresolved.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about non‑enforcement of the domestic courts’ judgments in her favour.
She also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the postponement of the execution for an indefinite duration of time was in breach of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant comply with the six-month rule when lodging a complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
2. Is the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour owing to the formal suspension of execution for an indefinite duration of time compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was it in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided by law? Did the authorities strike the requisite fair balance between the general interest of the community in providing the IDPs with temporary housing and the protection of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy