CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .s4A7642F0 { width:147.75pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 39211/17 Aslan AHMADOV against Azerbaijan   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   September 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Raffaele Sabato , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   39211/17) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 18   May   2017 by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Aslan Avaz oglu Ahmadov (“the applicant”), who was born in 1957, lives in Baku and was represented by Ms N. Isgandarova, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan; the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov; the observations submitted by the Government; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application mainly concerns complaints about an allegedly unlawful expropriation of the applicant’s plot of land for the purpose of constructing a new mosque. 2.     Following the applicant’s written request, on 29 December 2006 the Binagadi District Municipality decided to sell a plot of land of 200 sq. m to him for the construction of a house. According to the receipt issued on the same date, the applicant paid the municipality 832 Azerbaijani manats ((AZN), approximately 692   euros (EUR) at the relevant time) for the plot of land. On the following day, a contract of sale was signed between the applicant and the head of the municipality. According to the applicant, after the purchase he erected a fence around the plot of land, planted trees on it and installed an entrance gate. In 2012 the construction of a new mosque began in the area, which also included building work on the plot of land in question. 3.     In August 2015 the applicant brought an action against the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), the Binagadi District Executive Authority and the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He complained, in particular, that he had been unlawfully deprived of his plot of land and asked for compensation corresponding to its value in the amount of AZN   150,000 (approximately EUR 130,150 at the material time). 4.     On 15 April 2016 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No.   1 dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court held that the applicant had failed to register his title to the plot of land in the State Register of Immovable Property and therefore could not claim any compensation in respect of it. Referring to the relevant domestic legislation, the court also noted some irregularities regarding the allocation of the plot of land. In particular, the court found that the building plans for the plot of land had not been coordinated with the Department of Architecture and Town Planning of the BCEA. It also noted that the applicant’s request (see paragraph 2 above) had not been sent to the State Land and Cartography Committee (SLCC), as a result of which the latter had not carried out work on the planning and land management of the land in question. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the plot of land had been allocated to the applicant in violation of the requirements under domestic law in force at the relevant time. 5.     The applicant appealed, reiterating the arguments he had made in the initial claim (see paragraph 3 above). He did not make any specific submissions in respect of the first-instance court’s findings. 6.     On 28 June 2016 the appellate court upheld the lower court’s judgment, endorsing the latter’s reasoning. 7.     On 1 December 2016 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. 8.     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he had been deprived of his property without any compensation. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 9.     Referring to the domestic courts’ conclusions (see paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 above), the Government argued that the plot of land in question had not constituted the applicant’s “possession”. The applicant’s belated submissions were not admitted to the case file. 10.     The Court reiterates at the outset that an applicant can allege a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 only in so far as the impugned decisions relate to his or her “possessions” within the meaning of that provision. “Possessions” can be “existing possessions” or claims that are sufficiently established to be regarded as “assets”. The Court has also referred to claims in respect of which an applicant can argue that he or she has at least a “legitimate expectation” that they will be realised, that is, that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right. However, a legitimate expectation has no independent existence; it must be attached to a proprietary interest for which there is a sufficient legal basis in national law (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§   142 ‑ 43, 20 March 2018, and the cases cited therein). 11.     In the present case, the domestic courts established that the relevant statutory procedures had not been followed prior to the land being allocated and the contract of sale being signed (see paragraphs 2, 4, 6 and 7 above). 12.     Under domestic law, upon receipt of a request from physical persons for the allocation of a plot of land, the municipality had to first forward the request to the SLCC. In order to prepare the plan for the plot of land, the SLCC had to determine the location of the plot to be allocated and the zone in which it was situated. The design and construction projects also had to be coordinated with the architectural department of the local executive authorities. Once those documents were sent to the municipality, it could issue a decision to sell the plot of land, which had to indicate the purchase price and the period within which a sale had to be concluded (for the relevant domestic law, see Orujova v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.) no. 1776/09 , §§   39 and 42-45, 17   June 2021). 13.     The Court notes that the applicant provided no explanation before either the domestic courts (see paragraph 5 above) or the Court as to why the above-mentioned steps had not been taken. 14.     The Court further notes that the applicant’s title to the plot of land had never been entered in the State Register of Immovable Property (see paragraph 4 above) and, therefore, he had never acquired any property rights in respect of it under domestic law (see Orujova , cited above, §§ 37-38 and 57). In his application to the Court, the applicant did not argue or demonstrate that he had a “legitimate expectation” of acquiring ownership rights to the plot of land in question in the circumstances of the present case (compare ibid., § 58). 15.     In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant did not have an existing possession or a claim constituting an asset within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (compare Çakar v.   Turkey [Committee] (dec.), no. 47136/06, § 29, 25 April 2017). 16 .     It follows that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. 17.     The Court, having declared inadmissible the substantive complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concludes that the applicant has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (compare Walter v.   Italy (dec.), no. 18059/06, 11 July 2006). It follows that the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention must also be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 17 October 2024.   Liv Tigerstedt   Raffaele Sabato   Deputy Registrar   President