CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 7 octobre 2025

.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 } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA79CBE53 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .sF5553F6A { width:108.07pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 54572/13)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 7 October 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sadigov v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 54572/13) 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 5 August 2013 by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Islam Huseyn oglu Sadigov ( İslam Hüseyn oğlu Sadıqov – “the applicant”), who was born in 1953 and lives in Baku, and was represented by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan; the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr   Ç.   Əsgərov; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 16 September 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The present case concerns the allegedly unlawful demolition of a shop erected by the applicant on Khiyabani Street in Baku. 2 .     The applicant was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Azerbaijanin Sesi ( Azərbaycanın səsi ), which was, in turn, the sole founder of the company Hacha Qaya (“the company”). The applicant was the director of the company. By an order issued in 1993, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) allocated a plot of land to the company for the construction of a shop. The surface area and coordinates of the allocated plot of land were not specified in the order. According to the order, the company was required to submit technical documents to the State Architectural Control Inspection of Baku to obtain a construction permit. In 1994 the company was issued a “Construction Passport” – a construction permit for the planning and building of a shop in the Yasamal district of Baku, and in 1996 the BCEA approved the architectural plans of the shop. 3.     The applicant alleged that after obtaining the above-mentioned documents, he had built a shop with a surface area of 200 sq. m, which had begun operating immediately after its completion. 4.     On 6 March 2007 the Yasamal District Executive Authority (“the YDEA”) issued an order to demolish unlawfully constructed commercial buildings on Khiyabani Street and the landscaping in the area. 5.     According to the applicant, on an unspecified date in 2007 representatives of the YDEA demolished the shop in question, along with other nearby unauthorised constructions, despite his informing them that it had been built lawfully. 6.     On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a complaint with Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 against the YDEA. He subsequently amended that complaint, seeking the return of the plot of land, measuring 300   sq. m, which had been allocated by the BCEA for the company’s use, the restoration of the demolished shop with a surface area of 200 sq. m, and compensation in the amount of 50,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in respect of pecuniary damage, AZN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and AZN 50,000 for lost profits. 7 .     By a final judgment of 16 January 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The courts held that, in accordance with paragraph 23 of the “Construction Passport” (see paragraph 2 above), the period of validity of the architectural and planning instructions in question had been set at two years. They also held that the existence of a lawfully constructed building belonging to the applicant could not be established. They further held that, even assuming that the building had existed, it could not be considered an authorised construction, since there was no evidence in the case file that the construction of the shop had been carried out in accordance with the applicable construction norms and rules or that it had been state-commissioned in accordance with the legislation after the construction had been completed. Furthermore, it had not been registered in the State Register of Immovable Property (“the SRIP”), as required by domestic law. In respect of the plot of land, the domestic courts held, referring to Article 166.3 of the Civil Code, that the applicant did not have any right to it because he had not registered his rights to it in the SRIP. As regards the lost profits, the domestic courts found that the applicant had failed to provide any supporting documents. 8 .     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the demolition of the shop and the expropriation of the plot of land by the State authorities had been unlawful and that he had not been awarded any compensation. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a reasoned judgment had been violated. Lastly, the applicant complained that the exercise of his right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention had been infringed, contending that his lawyer’s office had been searched in connection with the lawyer’s criminal conviction and case files related to his application before the Court, which had been in his lawyer’s possession, had been seized. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 9.     The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine the complaints only under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for a similar approach, Orujova v.   Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), no. 1776/09, § 49, 17 June 2021, and Asadov v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), nos. 64762/09 and 54136/12, §   21, 8 September 2022). 10.     The Court observes at the outset that the events complained of in the present case affected the company, whereas on the application form the applicant indicated himself, rather than the company, as the applicant. The Government did not raise any objection as to the Court’s competence ratione   personae with the provisions of the Convention with respect to the applicant’s status of a “victim”. 11.     The relevant principles concerning victim status were summarised in, among other authorities, Vladimirova v. Russia (no. 21863/05, §§ 39-40, 10   April 2018, with further references). 12.     In the present case, the applicant was the company’s director (see paragraph 2 above). It appears from the documents in the case file that there were no other members of the company (compare Tilocca v. Croatia [Committee], no. 40559/12, §§ 27-28, 5 April 2018). Furthermore, in the domestic proceedings, the applicant himself was the complainant and his complaint was accepted and examined by the domestic courts (compare Akshin Garayev v. Azerbaijan , no. 30352/11, § 38, 2 February 2023). In such circumstances and in the absence of any competing interests which may create difficulties, the Court concludes that the applicant can claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (compare Vladimirova , cited above, § 41, and Rustamkhanli v. Azerbaija n , no.   24460/16, § 30, 4 July 2024, with further references). 13.     The Court’s case-law on the concept of “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has been summarised in, among other authorities, Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no.   76254/11, § 73, 29 January 2015), and Aliyeva and Others v.   Azerbaijan (nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 102-04, 21 September 2021). Plot of land 14.     The Government submitted that the plot of land in question did not constitute a possession of the applicant. The applicant reiterated his complaint. 15.     In the present case the domestic courts found that the applicant had not registered his title to the plot of land; therefore, he had no right to it (see paragraph 7 above). The Court observes that under domestic law the right of ownership to land, as well as the leasing of or right of use over an immovable property with a term exceeding eleven months, was subject to State registration. The applicant failed to provide any document confirming the State registration of his right of ownership or right of use in respect of the plot of land in question. The applicant likewise failed to submit the “land allocation act” or the approved plan of the allocated plot of land required by the relevant provisions of the Land Code as in force at the material time. 16.     It follows that this complaint 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. Non-residential property 17.     The Government argued that the contested building had never existed and, even assuming that it had, the applicant had not acquired any property rights to it. The applicant reiterated his complaints. 18.     The Court notes that under domestic law a residential building, construction, facility or other immovable property erected on a plot of land not allocated for construction purposes or without obtaining the necessary permits or as a result of a serious breach of town-planning and building regulations was considered an unauthorised construction. The party that had erected an unauthorised construction could not acquire ownership rights to the construction in question and was not entitled to dispose of it by sale, deed of gift, lease or by any other means (see Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan , no.   9437/12, §§ 12-14, 18 November 2021). 19.     In the present case, the domestic courts held that the existence of the building in question and its alleged demolition by the local executive authority had not been established because of a lack of evidence. They also held that, even if the applicant had built it, he could not claim compensation because (i) there was no evidence that the building complied with the requirements of the legislation on the construction of non-residential property, since he had not obtained a certificate of the commissioning of the building and (ii) he had not registered any title to it. 20 .     The Court observes that the parties disputed the existence of the building in question. The Government also reiterated the domestic courts’ conclusion that, even assuming that the building had existed, it could not have constituted a possession of the applicant. The Court agrees with the latter conclusion for the following reasons. 21.     It is clear from the case file that the applicant claimed ownership right over the building that he had erected, without obtaining a certificate of the commissioning of the building or registering a title to it, on a plot of land to which he did not have title (see paragraph 7 above). The applicant himself did not contest these facts. While the BCEA allocated a plot of land to the company and authorised the construction of a shop (see paragraph 2 above), the applicant was or should have been aware that he was required to obtain a certificate of the commissioning of the building upon the completion of its construction (compare Orujova , cited above, § 63). However, he failed to do so or to register his ownership right over the building in question, as required under domestic law. 22.     In such circumstances and in the absence of any substantiated arguments to the contrary, the applicant had neither a “possession” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 nor a legitimate expectation under the relevant domestic law of obtaining recognition of his rights to such construction (compare Orujova , § 64, and Asadov , § 27, both cited above). 23.     It follows that this part of the complaint is also incompatible ratione   materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 24.     As regards the complaint under Article 34 of the Convention (see paragraph 8 above), the submissions made by the applicant and the Government were identical to those made by the relevant parties in respect of the same complaint raised in Annagi Hajibeyli (no. 2204/11, §§ 57-60, 22   October 2015). 25.     In Annagi Hajibeyli , after examining an identical complaint based on the same facts, the Court found that the respondent State had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 64 ‑ 79). The Court considers that its finding in Annagi Hajibeyli also applies to the present case and it sees no reason to deviate from that finding. 26.     The Court therefore finds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 27.     The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage (including the sums of EUR 50,000 for the demolished shop and the plot of land and EUR 50,000 for lost profit), EUR 20,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for legal fees. 28.     The Government asked the Court to reject the applicant’s claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as they considered them unsubstantiated and excessive, and they considered it reasonable to award the applicant 350 Azerbaijani manats for costs and expenses. 29.     In the present case, an award in respect of damage can only be made on the basis of a breach of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court considers that the applicant has suffered non ‑ pecuniary damage as a result of the violation found. Having regard to circumstances of the case, the Court considers that it can be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation. 30.     As regards costs and expenses, regard being had to the documents in its possession and making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 500 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention inadmissible; Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 500 (five hundred   euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Olga Chernishova   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat   Deputy Registrar   President