CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 17 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9167BAAD { font-family:Arial; color:#0d0d0d } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s98CCAF74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A0C6575 { height:33.35pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s77730776 { height:52.5pt } .s41375D7A { height:27.85pt } .s8615E8B1 { height:48.9pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF RZAYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 25690/14 and 5 others)             JUDGMENT (Merits) STRASBOURG 17 October 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rzayev and Others v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Raffaele Sabato , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications 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”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein, and represented by Ms S. Aliyeva, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan; the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr   Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 26 September 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applications mainly concern the applicants’ complaints about an allegedly unlawful expropriation of their properties by the State authorities. 2.     The facts of the present case are similar in several respects to those in Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883/11, 22 October 2015). As in that case, in the present case, the applicants’ properties were demolished by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), on the basis of two orders issued by the head of the BCEA on 24 September 2008 and 16 February 2011, which stated that the buildings and houses located on certain streets were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing a new garden-park complex (“the Winter Park”) and the residents were to be relocated. The applicants were offered 1,500   Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per square metre of their properties in compensation. The BCEA offered to make the payments not as compensation for expropriation, but on the basis of contracts of sale to be entered into by the applicants and an individual, Z.I., who was apparently acting on behalf of the BCEA. Most of the applicants entered into those contracts after the demolition of their properties. 3.     On various dates, the applicants brought administrative proceedings against the BCEA in Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 seeking, inter alia , the invalidation of the BCEA’s above-mentioned orders and the contracts of sale signed between them and Z.I., in addition to an award of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants mainly argued that the BCEA’s orders had been unlawful and that the contracts of sale had been entered into under duress. They also complained that the compensation that had already been paid by the BCEA had been too low. In support of their claims, the applicants, except the applicant in application no. 37345/15, submitted valuation reports to the domestic courts, containing estimations of the market value of their properties. 4.     On various dates (see the appended table) the first-instance court dismissed the applicants’ complaints in full or in part, finding that the BCEA’s orders and actions had been lawful and that the amount of compensation had been adequate. In respect of the claims regarding the contracts of sale, the court held that they had been entered into in accordance with the relevant law. 5.     By final judgments delivered on various dates (see the appended table), the Supreme Court dismissed or partly dismissed cassation appeals lodged by the applicants, reiterating the reasoning of the lower courts. In the proceedings concerning the claims of the applicants in applications nos.   68452/14, 10266/15, 37345/15, 38009/15 and 35068/16, the courts awarded an additional 20% compensation, in accordance with Presidential Decree no.   689 of 26   December 2007. 6.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the de facto expropriation, by way of demolition, of their properties had amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with their property rights. They further complained that the amount of compensation that they had been paid for their properties had been very low. 7.     The applicants in applications nos. 68452/14, 10266/15, 37345/15 and 38009/15 further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that parts of the domestic courts’ judgments concerning the award of an additional 20% compensation (see paragraph 5 above) had not been enforced. 8.     Lastly, all of the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention of a breach of their right to a reasoned judgment. The applicants in applications nos. 25690/14, 68452/14, 10266/15 and 35068/16 also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that there had been a violation of their right to respect for their home. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with the above-mentioned complaints and the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the same applicants, except the applicant in application no. 35068/16, also complained that they had not been afforded a remedy providing effective protection against the violation of their rights. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 9.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule   42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF Protocol n o . 1 TO THE CONVENTION 10.     It is undisputed by the parties that the relevant properties, as indicated in the ownership documents, had been in the applicants’ private ownership (see the appended table). 11.     The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 12.     The general principles concerning Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 have been summarised in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 76254/11, §§ 79-82, 29   January 2015), Khalikova (cited above, §§ 134-36) and Maharramov v.   Azerbaijan (no. 5046/07, §§ 56-60, 30   March 2017). 13.     In Khalikova (cited above) the Court found that the expropriation of the applicant’s property had not been carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law”. It concluded, in particular, that (i) the BCEA did not have the authority to expropriate private property; (ii) no lawful expropriation order had been issued by a competent State authority; and (iii) the interference with the applicant’s possessions had thus constituted a de facto deprivation of possessions. The Court also found it irrelevant that a contract of sale had been signed between the applicant and R.K., holding that (i) it had been entered into after the demolition of the applicant’s property; and (ii) it was clear that R.K. had been entrusted with this task by the BCEA and had acted on behalf of the executive authorities. 14.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It thus considers that the expropriation of the applicants’ properties was not carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law”. 15.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     As concerns certain applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of parts of the domestic courts’ judgments concerning the award of an additional 20% compensation (see paragraph 7 above), the Court notes that, in their observations, the applicants submitted that they had already received the above-mentioned compensation. They did not, however, mention the date on which the payments had been made. Nor did they appear to complain of any delay in the enforcement of the relevant domestic judgments (compare Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no.   77919/11, § 22, 10   November 2022). This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§   3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. OTHER COMPLAINTS 17.     Turning to the remaining complaints (see paragraph 8 above), having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.     The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses (see the appended table). The Government submitted that the sums claimed were excessive and that the applicants had failed to substantiate their claims. 19.     The Court considers that the question of the application of Article 41 in its entirety is not ready for decision. It is therefore necessary to reserve the matter, due regard being had to the possibility of an agreement between the respondent State and the applicants (Rule 75 §§ 1 and 4 of the Rules of Court). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible; Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the non-enforcement of final judgments in applications nos.   68452/14, 10266/15, 37345/15 and 38009/15 inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 6 (right to a reasoned judgment), 8 and 13 of the Convention; Holds that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention is not ready for decision; accordingly, (a)   reserves   the said question in whole; (b)   invites   the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach; (c)   reserves   the further procedure and   delegates   to the President of the Committee the power to fix the same if need be. Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 October 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Liv Tigerstedt   Raffaele Sabato   Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no.   Lodged on Applicant name Year of birth Place of residence Type and size of property (according to ownership documents) Date of demolition Date of contract of sale Domestic courts’ judgments/decisions   Compensation awarded/paid at the domestic level Just satisfaction claims 1 25690/14   19/03/2014 Rauf Rzayev 1959 Baku A flat of 144.7 sq. m --/12/2011 30/12/2011 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 on 31/07/2012 Baku Court of Appeal on 11/10/2012 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 on 07/05/2013 Baku Court of Appeal on 07/08/2013 Supreme Court on 04/12/2013   AZN 232,200 paid under the contract.   AZN 553,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and AZN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   2 68452/14   11/10/2014 Farruh Khudayarov 1947 Baku A flat of 41.9 sq. m --/09/2012 18/10/2012 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 on 15/07/2013 Baku Court of Appeal on 19/11/2013 Supreme Court on 30/04/2014 AZN 62,850 paid under the contract and AZN 12,570 (an additional 20%) awarded by the courts.   AZN 78,650 in respect of pecuniary damage and AZN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   3 10266/15   18/02/2015 Solmaz Gaffarova 1957 Baku   Kubra Gaffarova 1990 Baku A flat of 49.6 sq. m 15/07/2013 20/02/2013 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 on 28/03/2014 Baku Court of Appeal on 11/06/2014 Supreme Court on 10/10/2014 AZN 40,800 paid to each applicant under the contract and AZN 16,320 (an additional 20%) awarded by the courts. AZN 147,580 in respect of pecuniary damage and AZN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   4 37345/15   15/07/2015 Bashkhanim Abbasova 1948 Baku A flat of 97.9 sq. m --/--/2013 25/10/2013 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 on 07/03/2014 Baku Court of Appeal on 28/08/2014 Supreme Court on 27/11/2014 AZN 200,000 paid under the contract and AZN 40,000 (an additional 20%) awarded by the courts.   AZN 208,118 in respect of pecuniary damage and AZN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 5 38009/15   24/07/2015 Irina Svyatoslavskaya 1939 Baku A flat of 71 sq. m 15/11/2013 10/12/2013 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 on 01/05/2014 Baku Court of Appeal on 19/08/2014 Supreme Court on 04/12/2014 AZN 106,500 paid under the contract and AZN   21,300 (an additional 20%) awarded by the courts. AZN 130,700 in respect of pecuniary damage and AZN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   6 35068/16   11/06/2016 Niyazi Mahammadi 1959 Baku A flat of 32.3 sq. m (allocated by order of the local executive authority in 1992) and a non-residential property of 23.7 sq. m 15/11/2013 26/12/2013 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 on 29/05/2014 Baku Court of Appeal on 18/11/2014 Supreme Court on 17/03/2015 Baku Court of Appeal on 29/05/2015 Supreme Court on 12/11/2015   AZN 35,550 paid under the contract for the non-residential property; AZN   48,450 paid for the flat; and AZN 16,800 (an additional 20%) awarded by the courts for the two properties. AZN 39,690 in respect of pecuniary damage and AZN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.